Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

President Dos Santos

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's ambassador to Angola last met President Dos Santos of Angola; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Cranley Onslow): Her Majesty's ambassador's last private meeting with the President of Angola was on 27 July 1982. I understand that he hopes to meet the President again today. Meanwhile, as my hon. Friend will know, the Angolan Minister of External Relations, Senor Paulo Jorge, is due to arrive in the United Kingdom tomorrow and I have arranged for a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, to meet him during the course of his visit.

Mr. Proctor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. He will know of my continuing concern for my constituent, Mr. Malcolm Wright, who has been in prison in Angola for seven years. Will my hon. Friend confirm that it would be appropriate tomorrow to make an appeal to the Minister of External Relations of the People's Republic of Angola for clemency for my constituents and other British prisoners held in Angola?

Mr. Onslow: I am sure that the Angolan Minister of External Relations is aware of the concern in this matter. Equally, I am sure that he will understand if my hon. Friend raises the case of his constituent.

Mr. Clinton Davis: May I advert to the subject of linkage? Is it not a fact that the concept is rejected not only by Her Majesty's Government but by all the other members of the Contact Group, with the exception of the United States? Therefore, is it not intolerable that the United States should aid and abet the racist Government of South Africa by using this concept to prevent democracy coming to Namibia as rapidly as possible, as required by the United Nations?

Mr. Onslow: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to share the construction that he puts on the position of the United States in these matters. He will know, because I have told him before, that we take the view that if this opportunity provides a means of securing a wider ranging settlement in southern Africa, it is not one that we should reject.

Warsaw Pact—NATO

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are

currently being taken by Her Majesty's Government to improve relations between the Warsaw Pact powers and the countries belonging to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Francis Pym): We and our allies in NATO have consistently made clear our desire to develop more constructive relations with the member states of the Warsaw Pact. Relations in each case must, however, take account of the actions and policies of the country concerned.

Mr. Winnick: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree, first, that the one thing that should unite East and West is the bringing to justice of Nazi war criminals, such as Barbie? What steps will the Government take, with other Governments, to bring notorious Nazi mass murderers such as Josef Mengele to justice? On the wider question, would it not be useful to explore seriously initiatives by the Soviet Union and not dismiss them out of hand, and to recognise the burning desire of the people of Europe to have a lasting and durable peace?

Mr. Pym: On the hon. Member's first point, I am sure that the House would wish to see justice done in all such cases of war criminals.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question is, yes, serious proposals will be given the most careful and thorough examination. As a general rule, a good deal of propaganda is contained within proposals that emanate from the Kremlin. There are also often signs of suggestions of movements that might be welcome. That part of its responses must, and will, be carefully examined.

Mr. Whitney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the development that is most likely to improve relations between the Warsaw Pact countries and NATO would be for the Soviet leader, Mr. Andropov, to accept, rather than reject out of hand, as he has done, President Reagan is invitation to a summit meeting?

Mr. Pym: The issue of a summit meeting between Mr. Andropov and President Reagan is essentially a matter for them. They must judge when the time is right. I hope that Mr. Andropov and the Russian leaders will change their minds about the zero-zero proposal that is on the table and find it in their hearts to accept it.

Mr. George Robertson: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Madrid conference is one forum in which East and West can be brought together? Is it not therefore to be regretted that the Government appear to be backing the deadlock that is occurring in Madrid today? Will the Government consider in some way abandoning the almost grovelling adherence to the American hard line at Madrid, to get some movement forward? Surely the future of Europe and its people is more important than a pig-headed approach at any one summit meeting?

Mr. Pym: The well-being and prosperity of the European peoples are uppermost in our minds. Our objective at the Madrid conference is to reach agreement on a substantial and balanced concluding document covering all the areas of the Helsinki Final Act. Different countries have different views about that, but that is our objective. We need a clear demonstration of Soviet willingness to live up to all the provisions of the Helsinki Final Act, including human rights, and to build on them. That is what we are trying to do.

Zimbabwe (Exchange Controls)

Mrs. Knight: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) on 20 December, Official Report, c. 327, on how many occasions the British high commission in Harare has made representations to the Zimbabwe Government concerning individual cases of hardship to British citizens caused by Zimbabwe's exchange controls; and on how many occasions such representations have had a successful outcome.

Mr. Onslow: In 1982 the British high commission raised 11 cases with the appropriate Zimbabwe Government Department.
In five of these cases the individuals concerned should now be receiving regular remittances. On the remaining six cases the high commission was able, on the basis of information provided by the Zimbabwe authorities, to give detailed guidance on how applications for remittance of blocked funds should best be pursued.

Mrs. Knight: I am grateful for that information, even though it covers only a small number of people. As the Government are at present granting millions of pounds to Zimbabwe, is it not possible to make some of that money available in Great Britain to British residents who wish to leave Zimbabwe but cannot bring any of their money out? Is my hon. Friend aware that many people—an example is the mother of my constituent Mr. Thomas—desperately need medical attention, which is no longer available in Zimbabwe? Can the British Government help British citizens who are in that situation?

Mr. Onslow: The answer to my hon. Friend's first question is that the terms of the Overseas Aid Act 1968 preclude us from making payments of the kind that she suggests direct to individuals. On the second question, I am aware of my hon. Friend's anxiety about that case, on which we corresponded some months ago. If she will send me full details of the present position I shall be happy to ask our high commission to see what it can do about the matter.

Republic of Ireland

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is considering any initiatives to improve relationships with the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): My right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have recently had separate meetings with the Irish Minister of Foreign Affairs. No doubt there will be other meetings of this kind, though no others at that level are fixed at present.

Mr. Dubs: Would not the best initiative be to raise with the Government of the Republic of Ireland the possibility of setting up a forum at which representatives of the people of the whole of Ireland could discuss issues which interest the whole of Ireland, such as energy policy, economic development, transport and perhaps security?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is putting forward a suggestion similar to one recently aired by the SDLP in Northern Ireland. We believe that the establishment of

widely acceptable devolved institutions in Northern Ireland offers the best chance of securing peace, political stability and recovery there.

Mr. Proctor: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that these negotiations are being conducted on the basis of two sovereign, foreign, independent states?

Mr. Hurd: I was referring, not to negotiations, but to occasional meetings, which do, and should, take place between two sovereign states inhabiting the same island.

Mr. Freeson: Will the Minister not be so offhand in rejecting, by implication, the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs)? Will serious consideration be given to establishing some kind of forum in which peoples from both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland can meet to discuss matters of common interest—political, economic and social? Will he consider extending that so that we establish some kind of forum in which this Parliament and the peoples and Parliaments of both parts of Ireland can meet to discuss such matters?

Mr. Hurd: There is the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council. There have been several ministerial meetings within that framework over the past year. It is for this House and the Dail to consider a parliamentary body.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: May it be made clear to the Irish Government that they and the Irish Republic have no business whatsoever in the internal arrangements for the government of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Hurd: Certainly the constitutional future of Northern Ireland is a matter for the people of the Province, the United Kingdom Government and this Parliament.

Mr. Moyle: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Dr. Garret FitzGerald has always tended to adopt a responsible attitude towards the problems of Northern Ireland? Will the Government therefore ensure that any initiative that he puts forward will receive a positive response in that context?

Mr. Hurd: We try to keep the Irish Government in touch with our thinking on Northern Ireland, but we cannot accept that there is a commitment to consult them about it.

Belize

Mr. Radice: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about Belize.

Mr. Home Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the breakdown of talks about Belize.

Mr. Norman Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the breakdown of negotiations about the future of Belize.

Mr. Tom Clarke: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he proposes to have further negotiations with Guatemala and Belize about territorial sovereignty.

Mr. Onslow: Talks took place in New York on 24 January between British and Guatemalan officials about


relations between Britain and Guatemala. On the same occasion representatives of Belize and Guatemala discussed the Belize-Guatemala dispute.
No agreement was reached on either subject.
Britain is no longer a principal in the dispute, because Belize is an independet sovereign state. We remain willing to help bring Belize and Guatemala together, as well as to discuss bilaterial relations with Guatemala.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call first the four hon. Members whose questions are being answered.

Mr. Radice: Will the Minister confirm that, following the breakdown of the talks, the United Kingdom remains committed to the defence of Belize? Will he assure the House that the arms supplied to Guatemala by the United States will not be used against Belize?

Mr. Onslow: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the position remains as it has been. That is to say, we have a garrison in Belize which will remain for the appropriate period. The arms so far supplied by the United States to Guatemala are not necessarily a significant increase in the Guatemalan military capability. However, the United States Government are well aware of our anxiety over the supply of military equipment to that Government.

Mr. Home Robertson: Can the Minister give an assurance that no British firms are involved, either directly or indirectly, in supplying arms to Guatemala?

Mr. Onslow: I have no knowledge of any such involvement.

Mr. Hogg: Can the Minister say how many Guatemalan refugees there are in Belize?

Mr. Onslow: Not without notice, Sir.

Mr. Clarke: Will the Minister make it clear that the House will take a dim view of President Reagan's agreeing to the export to Guatemala of American arms which might conceivably be used not just against Belize but against British forces in due course?

Mr. Onslow: I am sure that the American Government will take note of the opinion expressed by the hon. Gentleman. We have already expressed our views to the American Government on the subject.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that British forces will remain in Belize to guarantee its security for as long as the democratically elected Government in Belize ask them to do so, or until such time as alternative security arrangements can be made?

Mr. Onslow: I assure my hon. Friend that the garrison will remain in Belize for an appropriate period. It must plainly be our long-term objective to try to create circumstances in which the presence of such a garrison in an independent state is no longer necessary for its security.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Will the Minister not be so mealy-mouthed about condemning the regime in Guatemala? Does he accept that Guatemala still has eyes on Belize? Will the Government assist Belize if the Guatemalans make any move?

Mr. Onslow: I did not think that I was being mealy-mouthed. I am well aware of the statements that have emanated from the Guatemalan Government. The hon.

Gentleman should understand that the presence of our garrison represents a commitment to preserve the integrity of Belize.

Mr. Clinton Davis: When the Minister talks about the garrison being there for "an appropriate period", will he please clarify that observation and make it patently clear that as long as there is any threat to the integrity of Belize from Guatemala our forces will remain there? In making the representations that he has to the United States, has he had any response to the question, which I hope he will have posed: what is the purpose of the United States in supplying arms to Guatemala? Is it to sustain democracy?

Mr. Onslow: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to act as a spokesman for the United States Government over their policy.

Mr. Skinner: Why not?

Mr. Onslow: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take this matter seriously, that we are well aware of our commitments and that other states in the area have an equal interest in the integrity of Belize. I hope that as time passes we shall be able to help Belize to widen the basis of its security.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Will my hon. Friend consider pressing the American Government to attach strict conditions to any future sale of arms to Guatemala?

Mr. Onslow: I should not wish to do anything to encourage the sale of arms so long as there is a danger that they might at some stage be used against Belize or against ourselves.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister confirm that, according to the Prime Minister's answer on the general question of countries rescheduling debts and British banks assisting those countries with their economic difficulties, Guatemala, like Argentina and many other countries that are buying arms to suppress other peoples, can enjoy the benefit of British bankers' assistance, and thereby support from the British taxpayer, because of the subsequent tax relief for those countries which may be indebted in the end?

Mr. Onslow: I am not sure of the relevance of the hon. Gentleman's question. I am surprised that he should apparently feel that it is in the interest of world peace that there should be economic chaos in any country.

Palestine (Payments)

Mr. Graham: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why a payment of £341 was made by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to Palestine for 1981–82, as listed in the Appropriation Accounts for that year.

Mr. Hurd: When the mandate for Palestine terminated in 1948 certain liabilities of the former Palestine Government remained outstanding to be met by Her Majesty's Government.
The payment of £341 listed under subhead "B4: Palestine" in the 1981–82 Appropriation Accounts was for a new artificial leg for Mr. M. A. Issa, who used to work for the former Palestine Government.

Mr. Graham: How does the Foreign Office define the geographical area that is called Palestine?

Mr. Hurd: I was trying to guess what the supplementary question would be. In this case, we are dealing with the area covered by the former Government of Palestine.

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend and the Government do all that they can to bring about a reconstitution of the state of Palestine. if that is what the Palestinian people themselves wish? In particular, will he move towards that by doing all that he can to bring forward the visit of the Arab League delegation to the United Kingdom, and to do so, if necessary, will he drop the condition precedent, whereby the Palestinians must forgo terrorism, when the major source of terrorist attacks in the region has been the state of Israel?

Mr. Hurd: We hope that the Arab League mission will come here before long. There is a later question on which these wider topics can best be dealt with.

Disarmament

Mr. McNally: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what current discussions are taking place between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the United States Department concerning progress in the various disarmament negotiations; and if he will inform the House of any recent initiatives, suggestions or proposals which have been put forward in such talks by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Pym: We are in constant touch with the United States Administration about the arms control negotiations, both in NATO and bilaterally. We are discussing the issues thoroughly with Vice-President Bush today. I cannot reveal the content of confidential exchanges with another Government. But I can tell the House that we discussed with the Americans all the initiatives which the West has recently taken in nuclear, chemical and conventional arms control.

Mr. McNally: Does the Secretary of State agree that we have gained the reputation of being "Little Sir Echo" to the American Administration in these negotiations? Does he further agree that there is little evidence of the British Government showing initiatives in this area, a role which, as the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) reminded us at the weekend, has been carried out by successive British Administrations? When will the Prime Minister show the personal interest in disarmament that has been the mark of previous British Prime Ministers?

Mr. Pym: I think that that shows just how little the hon. Gentleman knows about it. Under successive Governments, and certainly under the present Government, there has been a great deal of bilateral contact with the United States, a great deal of discussion about the details of the negotiations and a great many suggestions have been put to them, bearing in mind that at the IMF talks and the START the United States is conducting negotiations on behalf of the West. At the moment the West has more positive initiatives on the table in the various forums than at any previous stage. Many of them are the result of conversations and discussions. The hon. Gentleman is wrong in his premise.

Mr. Faulds: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Andrew Faulds.

Mr. Faulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I sometimes wait a long time to catch your eye. I apologise for the delay. I was at that moment indulging in a private conversation.
Will the right hon. Gentleman accept and understand that the people of Britain will be increasingly dissatisfied with a situation in which the British Government do not have control over the dual key operation for the use of nuclear weapons in Britain?

Mr. Pym: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions, and so have I, we have the advantage of the system and method of joint decision with the United States. It is not possible for these weapons to be used without the agreement of both the Prime Minister and the President. That is what the joint decision means. We have re-investigated the position, as happens every time a new Prime Minister or a new President takes office. Since then my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has examined the matter again and is of the conviction, as I am, that the joint decision means what it says, which is a satisfactory position for Britain.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: In view of the preponderance of chemical weapons held by the Soviet Union, does my right hon. Friend envisage any new initiatives with the United States Government to set up talks that might ban the use of these weapons in the event of war?

Mr. Pym: Yes, there have been discussions on the possibility of eliminating chemical weapons altogether. As my hon. Friend knows, we in Britain disposed of ours many years ago. The United States has taken no action on chemical weapons for some time, but it is now taking new initiatives in the talks designed to end the use of these weapons. We have made some positive suggestions about verification and other aspects. I mention this in answer to the original question of the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally). That is a positive position. I hope very much that between us—the United States and ourselves—we will achieve a successful result in this negotiation, but it depends, again, on the response of the Soviet Union.

Mr. George Robertson: The House will welcome the conciliatory remarks of the Foreign Secretary earlier today. Does he accept that agreement on the use of missiles is unlikely to be achieved at Geneva if the zero option is the only proposal being put forward by the United States? Surely it is time for Britain to counter the Soviet propaganda offensive by putting forward proposals of its own, perhaps along the commendable lines of the nuclear free zone proposed by the Palme commission? Surely it is time that we stopped kowtowing to every twist of President Reagan's foreign policy and started to stimulate the process of agreement?

Mr. Pym: I am not so interested in any propaganda related to arms control. I am interested in trying to get an agreement. The whole of our effort is designed and intended to achieve an agreement. That is why we must negotiate seriously around the tables at the various forums, which is what we are doing. With regard to zero-zero, we should hear criticism of the Soviet Union for not accepting it, rather than criticism of us for not moving away from it. If, unfortunately, that turns out to be the case and we are satisfied that the Soviet Union means that it will not


in any circumstances accept it, we shall have to consider, and we would in those circumstances consider, a less satisfactory answer—perhaps an intermediate position on the way to a zero-zero position. I believe that the House would think it wise for ourselves and all Governments to be quite sure that there is no possibility of the zero-zero option before we contemplate any other stage, but if we are driven to it of course we will, and then we would have to sit around the table to consider what less satisfactory agreement could be reached to which the Soviet Union would agree.

Mr. Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are in a special position to convey to the United States Government the anxieties that exist within our European continent about the level of armaments and to urge upon that Administration the need for maximum resourcefulness and imagination in their approach to the negotiations in Geneva?

Mr. Pym: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The United States has shown much imagination in this matter. The zero-zero option was put forward by the Americans and has been rejected by the Soviet Union. That rejection should be criticised. Britain and America have been using all their imagination and endeavour to produce a series of proposals as they have become necessary. What we want above all else is an agreement to reduce armaments.

Anatoly Shcharansky

Mr. Woodall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government are considering any new initiative to persuade the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to allow Anatoly Shcharansky to leave that country; and if Her Majesty's Government will consider combining with other European countries in an approach to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Rifkind): My right hon. Friend summoned the Soviet ambassador on 7 February and asked him to convey to the Soviet Government an urgent appeal for Mr. Shcharansky's immediate release on humanitarian grounds. In present circumstances, we believe that bilateral approaches and raising the issue at the Madrid meeting are the right way of dealing with this matter.

Mr. Woodall: Will the Minister accept that that is a most helpful answer? As he has stated, his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has expressed her concern and sympathy for Mr. Shcharansky, as have other European Heads of State. Will the Minister suggest to his right hon. Friend that a concerted approach by Heads of State might secure the release of this poor, unfortunate gentleman?

Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments. Several Governments are expressing their views in the clearest possible terms, and the Soviet Union is being left in no doubt that Mr. Shcharansky, who is a member of the Helsinki monitoring group, is of special importance because of the present talks in Madrid.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: What reply would Her Majesty's Government make to a demand by the Soviet Union that a prisoner in one of Her Majesty's prisons should be set at liberty?

Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman should realise that Mr. Shcharansky's status as a member of the Helsinki monitoring group seeking to ensure that the Soviet Union observes the agreements into which it entered at the Helsinki conference gives a special interest to he rest of the world to draw to the attention of the Soviet Union its failure to comply with its obligations.

Mr. Lawrence: Is my hon. Friend aware that nearly all hon. Members, especially those who are concerned with human rights, and the all party Committees will be delighted with the initiative that my right hon. Friend has taken?

Mr. Winnick: What about Chile?

Mr. Lawrence: Will he carry on with the same enthusiasm to pursue the Russians in their determination to deprive Soviet Jews of their basic human rights, which are important to hon. Members on both sides of the House?

Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. It is clear that Mr. Shcharansky's case is important, not only for the reasons that I mentioned, but because he has become a symbol of the desire of people to choose whether they wish to live in the Soviet Union or to leave. That right has been increasingly denied them by the Soviet Union, again contrary to the Helsinki agreement.

Mr. James Lamond: What answer would the Foreign Office give to a request by the Soviet Union for the immediate release of political prisoners who have from time to time been on hunger strike in prisons in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman does a disservice to this country and to Parliament by trying to equate the free and correct trial of a person charged with a criminal offence with the bogus charges that are made against many Soviet citizens for indulging in actions of which the Soviet Government disapprove.

Mrs. Knight: I thank my hon. Friend for all that he said and for all that he is doing for Mr. Shcharansky. Will he never cease to make an effort for the pathetic and numerous batallion of other people who wish to leave that country but are not allowed to do so?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct to draw attention to the fact that, although Mr. Shcharansky's case is well known around the world, tens of thousands, and possibly hundreds of thousands, of people who are unknown in Britain have similar problems.

Mr. George Robertson: As the Opposition believe in human rights throughout the world, we fully support the humanitarian calls to free Anatoly Shcharansky from the Soviet Union. Is the Minister aware that we believe that his continued imprisonment in the Soviet Union can only sour relations between East and West, and will he continue to exert the maximum pressure on the Soviet Government to respond to international feeling?

Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It will assist us in our representations to be able to say that my right hon. Friend speaks for both sides of the House on this matter.

Iraq-Iran War (Ceasefire)

Mr. McWilliam: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts Her Majesty's Government have made to bring about a ceasefire between Iraq and Iran.

Mr. Hurd: We have supported attempts by the United Nations Secretary General and others to end this war. We voted for resolution 37/3, calling for an immediate ceasefire and a just settlement, at the recent session of the United Nations general assembly. We shall continue to support the efforts of those who are trying to achieve a solution.

Mr. McWilliam: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm independent press reports that more than 200,000 people, many of them civilians who belong to minority sects, have been killed in this war? Have the Government ceased to supply military equipment to either side until hostilities are ended?

Mr. Hurd: I cannot confirm the figure for casualties, but in a war that has gone on since September 1980, many people, civilian as well as military, have been killed. We are neutral in this war and we have not supplied lethal equipment to either side.

Viscount Cranborne: Will my right hon. Friend give us details about the amount of military equipment being supplied to the Iraqis by the Soviet Union?

Mr. Hurd: No, Sir, I cannot.

Mr. Newens: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that as long as both sides can obtain arms there is no incentive for them to cease the war, which distracts their populations from the appalling record on human rights that prevails in both countries? In those circumstances, will the Minister reconsider negotiations between the British Government and the Iraqi Government about the supply of arms? Can he say that there has been no supply of arms to Iraq and that there are no proposals to supply arms? If that is the position, it is different from my understanding.

Mr. Hurd: I repeat that we have not supplied lethal equipment to either side.

Mr. Moyle: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the war has now reached a stalemate and that the longer it continues the greater the danger that something might happen to destabilise the entire area? Has not the time come for Britain, with other interested countries, to approach the combatants with a view to starting negotiations towards peace?

Mr. Hurd: Several individuals and organisations have been trying to do that. We have been in touch with Mr. Olaf Palme, who is the United Nations Secretary-General's representative in this matter. We have also been in touch with representatives of the Islamic Conference and many others. Perhaps the Algerians are the best placed to do the job that the hon. Gentleman mentions, and we wish them and all others every success.

Joint Passports (Children)

Mrs. Faith: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek powers to compel the surrender of any joint passport which includes a child who has become the subject of a custody order made by a divorce court.

Mr. Hurd: No. The courts already require the surrender of any passport if they have reason to believe that a parent intends to use it to take a child out of their jurisdiction in contravention of a court order. A parent awarded custody of a child by order of a court can enter a caveat with the passport office against the child being granted passport facilities without its parents' or the court's consent.

Mrs. Faith: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. However, if that is the case, and in view of the number of children who are being abducted, many of whom are taken abroad, should not the whole matter of joint passports be re-examined? If a child had its own passport, it could be given to the parent who is awarded custody.

Mr. Hurd: We have been considering the general subject carefully, and there was a debate on it at breakfast time yesterday in the House. It would be difficult and complicated for individuals if we introduced the change that my hon. Friend suggests, but we do not have closed minds about ways of making it more difficult for those distressing cases of abduction to occur.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister accept that the caveat system and administrative arrangements are not working, and that even solicitors are unaware of the possible application of the caveat system? Will he re-examine the system with a view to either greater publicity or more stringency to stop the kidnapping of children, which is causing many harrowing cases? Will he consider the possibility of having witnesses to the signature of parents, where the child is in custody, to diminish the possibility of fraudulent signatures being used to obtain passports to take children out of the country?

Mr. Hurd: I should like to consider that last suggestion. The caveat system is publicised through the Law Society and citizens' advice bureaux. There would be a real difficulty in following up the suggestion in the original question as there are 150,000 decrees nisi or judicial separations each year, 60 per cent. of which include minors. It would not be possible to compel the surrender of joint passports.

Middle East

Mr. Walters: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards peace in the Middle East.

Mr. Pym: We remain committed to the search for a comprehensive settlement on the basis of the Venice principles. President Reagan's proposals and the Fez declaration have created an important opportunity for progress towards peace. I do not underestimate the difficulties, but it is, in our view, vital that this opportunity should be taken with the minimum of delay. We are doing all that we can to help this process forward.

Mr. Walters: As the Israeli tribunal has now established that the Israeli Minister of Defence is a war criminal, what can be done to reverse his destructive policies and bring about a speedy termination of the Israeli occupation of Lebanon and the freezing of illegal settlements on the West Bank?

Mr. Pym: It is for the Israeli Government to consider the inquiry. With regard to the important subject of withdrawal of forces from the Lebanon, I entirely share my


hon. Friend's desire for the withdrawal of all forces. The United States Administration and their negotiator Mr. Habib, are doing all that they can to achieve that. It must be admitted that, thus far, progress has been slow. Mr. Habib has recently returned. We strongly hope that he will succeed this time in bringing about a withdrawal, which must be the essential precondition to establishing a free and independent Government in Lebanon.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

Policy Development

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further proposals he intends to place before his European Economic Community colleagues for the development of Community policies.

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the additional priorities for future common policies in the Community to be promoted by Her Majesty's Government following the successful conclusion of the common fisheries policy on 25 January.

Mr. Leighton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which areas of policy he is now concentrating his efforts to achieve joint action within the European Community.

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what common policies within the European Community he now intends to seek to negotiate.

Mr. Pym: We have ideas for developing European Community policy over the whole range of its activities. These were summarised in a booklet entitled "Britain in the European Community: A Positive Approach", which we published on 24 January. The booklet covers British proposals for extending the internal market in goods and services, for reform of the operation of the common agricultural policy, for building on the agreed framework of an energy strategy, for a lasting solution to the Community's budget problem, for extending the regional and social policies, and many other suggested directions for Community development. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Knox: In view of the memorandum that was published by the Brandt commission today, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Third world will greatly benefit from Community interest? Does he have any proposals to put before his colleagues to provide a basis for a Community policy for the Third world?

Mr. Pym: The Community already has an aid policy to which the United Kingdom subscribes. From the point of view of the United Kingdom, that contribution to the Third world is only one part of our aid programme that will be expanded in 1983–84. Now that the second Brandt report has been published, hon. Members will wish to study it as carefully as will the Government. It is an extremely important report.

Mr. Leighton: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the British people are sick and tired of the continued haggling and wrangling about Britain's unfair and excessive payments to the European budget, which have continued

ever since the Prime Minister went to Dublin and asked for our money back? Does he agree that no end to that wrangling is in sight because any fundamental restructuring of the budget, its revenues and expenditure, would require a new treaty which every member state Government would have to sign and there is not the political will to do that?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree also that the British Government have a partial responsibility for the problem, as they have broken their election manifesto commitment to freeze the price of goods in structural surplus, and that the constant increase in food prices has heavily unbalanced the EC budget?

Mr. Pym: I agree that when we finally resolve the budget problem everyone will be greatly relieved. The hon. Gentleman referred to the British public's view. I wonder what he thinks about mine. The present Government took over from the previous one, who had made no effort to redress the imbalance in the budget. Since then we have had two successful negotiations and are about to start a third for 1983 and later years. I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's desire and will do everything that I can to bring the negotiations to a successful conclusion. However, it would be quite wrong to pretend to the House that that will be easy.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his proposals for securing fresh areas of agreement are specifically designed to secure greater popular acceptance of the advantages of Britain's membership? Does he agree that it is conspicuously unhelpful for the achievement of those objectives when British Airways insists on buying American aircraft rather than perfectly satisfactory European ones?

Mr. Pym: The purpose of our positive proposals over a range of Community policies is precisely to ensure greater prosperity for all members of the Community. We can now say that many of the ideas that are on the table before the Community emanated from Britain.

Mr. Greville Janner: With regard to the development of EC policies in foreign affairs, will the right hon. Gentleman commend to our partners in the EC his and the Prime Minister's right and firm decision to refuse to meet leaders of the PLO? Will he recognise the staunch and vigorious democracy that operates under the rule of law in Israel, which is unique in that area and rare in many other parts of the world?

Mr. Pym: I often think that it is helpful if people mind their own business. I think that we might take the same view about the hon. Gentleman's point. It is for each Government to decide what their attitude should be on that issue.

Mr. Nelson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the price of oil should fall dramatically there might be some fairly dire consequences for the exchange rate of sterling against European currencies? In view of the damaging possibilities of short-term fluctuations in sterling, is it not an urgent priority for European co-operation that we now become full members of the European monetary system? What efforts is he making to prevail upon his Treasury colleague to accept that point of view?

Mr. Pym: My hon. Friend acknowledged at the end of his question that this is the responsibility of my right hon.


and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have conversations on the subject from time to time. I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. and learned Friend has that point firmly in mind. He has spoken on it on several occasions. It would be unreasonable to expect him suddenly to change his mind about it, but I assure my hon. Friend that he thinks about it frequently.

Mr. Heffer: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the pamphlet to which he referred reads much more like a Conservative party pamphlet than a Government one? How much did it cost to produce? Is he also aware that another document published by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office entitled "The First 10 Years" states:
The Common Agricultural Policy … Britain accepts its basic principles.
Am I now to understand that the Government intend to do nothing about the basic principles of the common agricultural policy, that our people are to be saddled with it for all time, and that the high prices that they must pay will continue?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Cryer: It is a savage indictment, Eric.

Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the document. I have copies of all of them. Does he agree that to talk in terms of developing common policies in the EC is absolutely ridiculous, especially when one considers what is happening with milk? Is it not silly to have a common policy when the 10 countries have completely different ways of dealing with specific questions? Can the Government assure us that the doorstep delivery of milk will in no way be affected by the recent court decision?

Mr. Pym: It had never previously crossed my mind that the subject of heated milk, of all things, could give rise to heated exchanges. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he wants about the continuation of doorstep deliveries of milk in this country. We adhere to the objectives of the CAP. What we object to is a number of ways in which it operates. We have suggested a number of alterations. We agree about excessive prices. That is why we are struggling to persuade our partners to accept lower prices than many of them require. That is the whole development of our thinking. We agree with the basic objectives.

Budget Repayments

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is able to make a further statement on the European Community budget problem.

Mr. Myles: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further negotiations there have been to settle the British budget problem within the European Community.

Mr. Pym: The Council last week established the draft 1983 supplementary and amending budget, which makes provision for our 1982 refunds. The draft budget has been sent to the European Parliament, and I hope that the Parliament will now adopt it with the minimum of delay. Discussions are continuing in the Council with the aim of finding a solution for 1983 and later years. The

Commission has just published a discussion paper on the future of the Community's financing system, which we are studying.

Mr. Evans: Is it true that we have to await the decision of the European consultative assembly tomorrow to know whether we are to get the refund of £500 million? Is it true that the assembly wants assurances that the money will be spent in pursuit of EC policies over which it can exercise greater control? Will the right hon. Gentleman resist that? Does the assembly want a guarantee that this will be the last annual makeshift rebate paid to the United Kingdom? Will he also resist that?

Mr. Pym: I believe that the House knows that the European Parliament has proposed no amendment to this draft budget. It seems likely that the Parliament will agree to it tomorrow, but it remains to be seen whether it does so. If so, that will be the end of the matter. In any case, we have the assurance of the Commission that the agreement reached in the Foreign Affairs Council last year will be honoured no matter what happens. We can, I am sure, count upon that.
As to later years, I have demonstrated clearly to the Council—Mr. Dankert and other members of the European Parliament were informed when we met a few weeks ago—that, in order to make an adjustment in 1983 and later, it will probably be necessary to have some kind of temporary arrangement. This is for the simple reason that the long-term restructuring of the financial system of the Community will take longer than a few months to achieve.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: Do the Government take the view that the whole of the Community aid programme should be brought within the Community budget so that it can be scrutinised by the European Parliament?

Mr. Pym: I have not taken a decision or a view about that. It is under discussion.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the budgetary problems of the European Community will get no easier, particularly with the accession recently of Greece and shortly of Portugal and then Spain? Is it not true that the budgetary problems will become more complex and that the initial members will have to pay out increasing amounts, to the detriment of our industries and of agriculture?

Mr. Pym: They may get more complex, but certainly they need not do so. That is the point of the proposals that we have put forward. It is the theme of the discussions that we shall pursue in consideration of the Green Paper. Our view is that enlargement of the Community does not necessarily mean an increase in resources or the need for such an increase. Too much goes on agriculture already. It is one of the points to be made for reform of the CAP.
This is obviously a matter that will be discussed over a period of months within the Community. Our view is that there is enough money at the moment. It has yet to be demonstrated to us that there is need for an increase.

Mr. Heffer: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is absurd that the House should have to wait for a decision of the European Parliament to know the future of the budget negotiations in which the Government have been engaged with the rest of the Community? Is it not clear, as the Opposition have argued, that the increase in the assembly's powers to the detriment of the interests of


the British people has been proved by this event? Will the Government make it clear, irrespective of any decisions of the so-called assembly, that they will do what is right in the interests of the British people?

Mr. Pym: We have already shown that the Government are a better defender of British interests than the Labour Government. The Labour party took part in the European elections in 1979, as did the Conservative party. There are members of the Labour party now in the European Parliament who have a role to play whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not. They are entitled to use whatever powers they have. The fact that they are voting on this issue seems to me to be a matter for them. We have the undertaking from the Commission that the bargain that was struck and the deal that was done for the 1982 refunds will occur in all circumstances.

Confederation of British Industry

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: asked Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he makes it his policy to assess the views of the Confederation of British Industry in regard to the future development of the European Community.

Mr. Hurd: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the CBI that it would be a disaster for British industry if we left the Common Market? Does he accept that not only do millions of jobs depend upon our growing exports to the Common Market, by far our largest market, but that foreign firms invest in jobs and factories in this country precisely because we are members of the Common Market.

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right. Personally, I hope that individual employers will inform their employees of the proportion of that firm's order book and therefore of jobs that depend on free access to the Community.

Mr. Dalyell: What can Foreign Office Ministers think in their reflective moments about supplies from Rolls-Royce to Blohm and Voss and from British Aerospace-Plessey to Aerospatiale Dassault of the most lethal weapons of war to be used, possibly by Argentina?

Mr. Hurd: I do not see that that arises from the question.

Sir Russell Fairgrieve: In the interests of this and other Community policies, may I give added weight to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson)? Will my right hon. Friend ask his colleagues in the Treasury to consider an early, rather than a later, joining of the EMS?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Hurd: I note what my hon. Friend says. Like him, I listened to my right hon. Friend's reply. I do not wish to add to it.

Mr. Ioan Evans: When the Minister talks to the CBI, will he get its confirmation that, since this country has become a member of the Common Market, industrial putput has fallen by 16 per cent. and that 2 million manufacturing jobs have been lost? Will he have discussions at the same time with the TUC to obtain its views on membership of the Common Market?

Mr. Hurd: The fact that unemployment in this country is bad is not a reason for putting more jobs at risk by withdrawing from the Community.

Council of Ministers

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next be attending a meeting of the Council of Ministers; what subjects will be discussed; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hurd: Because of other commitments my right hon. Friend will not be attending the next Foreign Affairs Council scheduled for 21 and 22 February, so I shall go in his place. A written statement of forthcoming business of the Council of Ministers, which included details of the provisional agenda for the February Foreign Affairs Council, was published in the Official Report on 31 January.

Mr. Hughes: Should not the right hon. Gentleman be delivering a clear repudiation of the diktat from the Common Market that tries to force down the throats of the British people so-called imported milk in substitution of our own most excellent product, which has been so superbly delivered in all weathers for so many years?

Mr. Hurd: I gather that the product to which the hon. Gentleman refers has 1 per cent. of the market. No one is compelling the hon. Gentleman or anyone else to drink the nasty stuff.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is it not the case that at the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council the one issue that will not be discussed is any diminution of the powers of the directly elected European Parliament, which has been so much criticised in earlier exchanges? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the Government are genuinely interested in a positive policy towards the Community this will mean an increase in the budget and also an increase in the direct power of the European Parliament?

Mr. Hurd: I do not think that we shall be discussing either a diminution or an increase in the powers of the body.

Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend feel that there is any prospect of the beginning of the development of a common energy policy?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend knows that a start has been made on that matter. He also knows about the proposals that my right hon. Friend and others have made on behalf of this country to develop such a policy. It could certainly be a useful part of the Community's general policies.

Mr. Stoddart: In relation to the import of UHT milk, is it not iniquitous that we should be told by an alien body what we should and should not do about imports? Is it not a disgrace that at the behest of such a body Ministers propose to introduce legislation in this Parliament to alter the law in accordance with the ruling of the European Court of Justice?

Mr. Hurd: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is to make a statement on his meetings yesterday. It may be that he will refer to that point.

Council of Agriculture Ministers

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the meeting of Council of Agriculture Ministers in Brussels on 7 and 8 February. I represented the United Kingdom with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.
The Council continued its discussion of the Commission's price proposals for 1983–84. No decisions were taken, and the Council of Ministers will resume negotiations on these matters at its meetings in March.
The Council agreed a further one month extension of the arrangements for New Zealand to export butter to Britain in accordance with agreement reached in the Council last October. The French and Irish Governments refused again to lift their reserve on the regulation implementing this agreement. I raised the question of the commitments which the French Government entered into last October in a trade agreement negotiated with the Soviet Union, which the Commission has found to be contrary to article 113 of the Treaty of Rome, and stressed to the Commission its duty to see that the illegal aspects of this agreement were stopped.
During the course of the Council, as the House knows, the European Court of Justice issued its judgment in the case related to United Kingdom imports of ultra-heat treated milk. As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) yesterday, the judgment states that the United Kingdom would be entitled to lay down the objective conditions which it considers ought to be observed as regards the quality of milk before treatment and as regards the method of treating and packing UHT milk of whatever origin offered for sale in its territory.
The Government will study the judgment in detail and will as soon as possible take the steps necessary to comply with it. Our aim will be to provide for the import of UHT milk from other member states subject to its satisfying the same health and hygiene requirements on which, in the interests of public health, we insist for the production and processing of our own milk. The necessary legislation will be set in hand urgently as soon as the details of the judgment have been studied and consultations held with the Commission and with other member states.
Meanwhile, in order to deal with the immediate situation created by the judgment and to retain full safeguards for public health, the Government are taking temporary precautions against the import of unsafe milk by amending the open general import licence so as to prohibit imports while the necessary studies and consultations take place.

Mr. Norman Buchan: How much progress has the Minister made with the French about New Zealand? Did he make it clear that this country stands by the negotiated agreement for the import of New Zealand butter without any trade-off or ties of any kind? Has he made it clear that that is the view of the whole House?
Secondly, the Minister said very little about prices. Did he adhere to the pledge in his party's last election manifesto that the Conservatives would call for a freeze on the price of products that were in surplus production? In particular, has he called for a freeze on, if not a reduction in, cereal prices?
We support the Minister's action on milk. We cannot tolerate a lowering of the health standards that apply in this country. We need a long-term solution. We cannot allow interference wih our dairy industry by the Common Market. There could be serious consequences for the producers, for jobs in the industry and for our old friend the door-to-door delivery. I hope that there will be a guarantee of a long-term solution, if not an outright ban. A drop in the consumption of liquid milk, which might well be the result of such imports, would merely force us to contribute even more to the butter mountain.
I have seen representatives of the Consumers Association, as, no doubt, has the Minister. As he knows, the association is anxious about prices, among other things. Is not the most effective way to deal with the price aspect, which affects the entire livestock industry, to ensure that the immense stocks of cereal in this country are released to the livestock industry at the price at which we are willing to subsidise their export? That would help dairy industry prices marginally and pig producers enormously. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance today that he intends so to release those stocks.

Mr. Walker: I believe that not only all Members of the House but the majority of EC countries and the Commission accept that an agreement was reached with New Zealand that was in the interests of both New Zealand and Europe and that it must continue. I think that it is now clear to the French and the Irish that their stand is most unpopular throughout the Community and that no changes can be made to buy their agreement.
On price fixing, any study of cereal and milk surpluses will show that there have been substantial price reductions in real terms and that the period of office of this Government compares favourably with that of previous Governments in this respect.
With regard to UHT milk, I entirely agree that this country is almost unique in having the benefit of regular doorstep deliveries which not only provide high quality milk to the households of this country but perform an important social service for the elderly and others. I certainly do not believe that any UHT milk that complied with our health regulations would have any chance of competing with that. Anyone who has tasted the stuff would find it difficult to drink it instead of the normal product delivered to the doorstep unless there was an enormous price differential. I certainly boast that my dog eats Lymeswold cheese, but it certainly would not drink UHT milk.
Clearly we shall permit only the sale of milk that meets all the appropriate safeguards. Port inspections and so on will be required, and we shall have to consider methods of doing that.
The hon. Gentleman referred to cereal prices. If he wishes to reduce cereal prices for livestock feeding throughout Europe, he must consider the substantial budgetary and financial costs involved, which would still have to be met, albeit in a different form, by consumers and taxpayers. There is no easy gimmicky way to cut cereal prices to livestock producers because the price reductions have to be paid for—unless one considers that the prices paid to cereal producers throughout Europe are far too high, and it would be difficult to argue that and to maintain a viable cereal industry in this country.

Mr. Buchan: I think that the Minister is unduly complacent about the possible competitive effect of cheap


UHT milk, especially when used as a loss leader by supermarkets. He must take on board the anxiety expressed by dairy traders as well as by milk producers.
Secondly, the Minister seems to be saying that he is content to use taxpayers' money to release cheap cereals to livestock producers abroad but that he is not prepared to do the same for our pig industry. There is no budgetary difference except that we can save our own industry and get cheaper prices.

Mr. Walker: When the Labour Government were in office, neither on butter nor on cereals did they pursue that policy. Their Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury calculated the expense of using that method. It sounds appealing and has great public response, but, whichever party is in power, it is unlikely to pursue that course.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the Minister not pursue a policy just because the previous Labour Government pursued it, and will he look again at incorporation proposals?
With regard to UHT milk, increasingly known as utterly horrible tasting milk, will the Minister give a more precise estimate of the impact on employment? His own officials suggested to the Select Committee on Agriculture that there would be a substantial effect on employment.

Mr. Walker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the taste of UHT milk. It has been available in this country for a considerable time. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) mentioned the possibility of its being used as a loss leader. It has been used as a loss leader. A lower price has been applied to UHT milk. It has never been a success, for good and sound reasons. There is no better value in Europe than the service quality and price of milk delivered to doorsteps in this country. It is of very good value and will continue to be of very good value.
The Commission looked on several occasions at the use of cereals, including the period when the leader of the Social Democratic party was the President of the Commission.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I am mindful that there are two abbreviated debates to follow in which a large number of hon. Members have constituency interests. I hope that the hon. Members who are called will ask one quick supplementary question so that we can more quickly reach the main debate.

Sir Marcus Kimball: Bearing in mind the current price negotiations, will my right hon. Friend confirm that our European partners are seized of the urgency of doing something immediately for the pig industry?

Mr. Walker: As my hon. Friend will know, the pig industry always has had considerable fluctuations because of the speed at which it can increase or reduce production.
One of the disadvantages of our pig and processing industry has been the failure to obtain its proper share of the bacon market. This year substantial improvements have taken place. The pig industry, in my view, has never taken the advantage that the Dutch or Danes have taken in both Europe and World markets. I hope that there will be substantial improvement in our marketing operation in this field in the coming year.

Mr. John Morris: In the light of the Minister's statement that he intends urgently to prepare legislation to allow imports of treated milk, will he recall the complete lack of expedition by France to comply with the judgment of the European Court on the import of lamb from this country? Is it not more important to prepare legislation carefully rather than hurriedly? Will he bear in mind the fact that, although the housewife is buying 15 per cent. of her liquid milk from the supermarket—a figure never anticipated by the trade—if she buys more she will be tempted to buy this dreadful milk and may well upset the balance in the wrong way, thereby losing the advantage of doorstep delivery? Would not that be a tragedy?

Mr. Walker: To lose the advantage of doorstep-delivered milk would be a total tragedy. Any Government in power should do everything possible to ensure that the doorstep delivery service continues for a whole range of reasons which I know the hon. Gentleman supports.
As for supermarket sales in this country, there is a class of people who, because of their accommodation in flats and the times at which they are at home, take advantage of the availability of milk supplies in shops. That is reasonable. I have nothing against it, providing it reaches sensible levels.
Throughout the Government's negotiations with the dairy trade, including the Co-op, and the milk producers, we have done everything possible to retain the doorstep delivery service.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that legislation will be very carefully prepared on the basis of ensuring that the hygiene controls and regulations that we apply are strenuously applied to any milk coming into this country. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the object of port inspections and everything else that is done will be to sustain that state of affairs.

Mr. Geraint Howells: What effects, if any, will the judgment of the European Court have on the future role of the Milk Marketing Board in this country?

Mr. Walker: None. The Milk Marketing Board has been accepted by the Community as a proper, recognised marketing organisation that is of considerable importance not just to milk producers but to consumers throughout the country.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his resolute and prompt action in defence of the status quo will be welcomed by the milk roundsmen, by the public in receipt of doorstep deliveries, by the Milk Marketing Board and by the Dairy Trade Federation? Is it not true that there are alarming implications within the judgment for the quality of milk treated by the UHT process? Does not that underline the extraordinary good value of the milk that is put on doorsteps every day?

Mr. Walker: Yes. The Consumers Association, in its report, when dealing with the value of milk put on the doorstep every day, gave a number of selective prices—several of which were out of date—purporting to show how much cheaper milk was in Europe than in the United Kingdom. At present milk in Denmark and in the Netherlands, for example, is similar in price to that in the United Kingdom, but it tends to arrive in cartons and not in bottles, and not at the doorstep but at the shop. Milk in Denmark and the Netherlands has some of the cream


content extracted from it, whereas the milk delivered in this country is whole milk with the appropriate amount of cream.
The price of milk delivered to the doorstep, in view of the service and quality, compares very favourably with that anywhere in Europe, with the exception of Ireland where there is a consumer subsidy on the delivery of milk.

Mr. Thomas Torney: I agree with much of what the Minister has said, particularly in defence of doorstep deliveries. I remind him of the employment situation in the doorstep delivery service. If we lose or weaken our doorstep delivery service, we shall add substantially to the almost 4 million unemployed people in this country. What will the Government and the Minister do ultimately to ensure that we keep our doorstep deliveries and keep this horrible milk out of our country?

Mr. Walker: I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman on the employment prospects. The important point about milk delivery is not only that large numbers of people are employed but that they are doing a good job in giving a service to consumers. It is very important to retain that position. In my judgment, maintaining doorstep deliveries and keeping milk production in this country at maximum efficiency are far more important than any threat from a rather bad tasting milk as an alternative. It is important that we ensure that our excellent delivery service, which is unique in western Europe, continues.

Mr. John Townend: Will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of the milk producers and milk roundsmen in east Yorkshire on the forthright way in which he got over to television viewers last night the fact that this imported milk is much lower in quality, is nasty in taste and does not compare in any way with our home-produced milk?

Mr. Walker: Some of the earlier reports yesterday morning did not take into consideration the fact that UHT milk is very different from the milk we are used to drinking in this country and there would be nothing like the present service. In this country—and this is something on which both sides of the House agree—this is a unique service of immense importance. It provides high quality milk at a very reasonable price.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is French milk any more unhygienic than British untreated milk? Why not put aside this spurious and silly non-tariff barrier system of keeping out continental milk and instead tell the truth—that we are trying to protect United Kingdom farmers and to plan their trade in a very Socialist way?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman's statements are totally absurd, especially the use in his argument of untreated milk, which forms a minute proportion of the market. His statements will give great pleasure to the French—but perhaps that was his purpose.

Mr. Robert Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most fundamental problem facing British agriculture is the growing imbalance between livestock and cereals? What action does he propose to take to correct the imbalance?

Mr. Walker: At present the price fixing proposals endeavour to ensure that the imbalance between the

rewards for livestock and cereals is corrected, but, in my view, it has not been corrected to a sufficient extent. There is a case for ensuring that the improvement in livestock prices is larger than any changes in cereal prices. That is the Government's attitude on the price fixing.

Mr. James Lamond: If British milk producers are delivering the right product at the right price at the right time—as the Prime Minister is always asking us to do—why does the Minister seem to find it necessary to emphasise so frequently that French milk is bad and that our delivery service is good? Cannot the customer decide for himself, or is this a case of double standards—protection for the farmers but no protection for the rest of our industry?

Mr. Walker: Actually, the double standards are on the other side. A number of anti-Europeans like the hon. Gentleman say in one breath that they want cheap food imports to lower prices to the housewife and say in the next breath that we should protect our milkmen and producers.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: Will my right hon. Friend expand on what he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball) about the pig industry and to the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) about cereal prices? He will be aware of the serious situation now facing the pig industry. Will he undertake to look at this and try to alleviate the problem?

Mr. Walker: Anyone who looks at the post-war position of the pig or poultry industries will find that there have been substantial fluctuations in their fortunes, from very good rewards to very low rewards, because of the speed at which production can be increased. The Government have taken a number of measures that have been helpful to the pig industry. In my judgment, the main scope for improvement is in the marketing of both bacon and pork products. As my hon. Friend knows, we are doing a lot about that at present.

Mr. David Stoddart: The right hon. Gentleman will know of my interest in the importation of New Zealand butter. Is he aware that I very much support the stand that he has taken? Is he also aware that many people are worried about the waspish comments of Madame Cresson—who seems to have a long-term contract with "The World at One"—which indicate that she will veto next year's importation of New Zealand butter? Will he give a further assurance about that, because we need it?

Mr. Walker: I give a total assurance. Having done this joyful and happy job in Brussels for the past four years, I know that Madame Cresson is not the first French Minister who has made waspish remarks.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he will receive widespread support for the prohibition on the importation of unsafe milk? Many of us find it refreshing to have a Minister who not only advances British fisheries and milk interests but is proving extremely adept at playing our European partners at their own game.

Mr. Walker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but the Government have always complied with the basic law of the Community and will always do so. The Community has laid down that we should make changes in our method


of importing this milk, and that we will do. In fairness, it has also laid down that we shall still have the power to apply standards of hygiene and health control that we consider adequate. We must now ensure that those standards are applied on an adequate and effective basis. If that is done, no milk producer in Europe will be able to compete with either our milk producers or our dairy industry, given that they will have to meet the same hygiene standards. We need have no fear from competition if other countries apply the same standards as we do.

Mr. Stanley Newens: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, if permission is granted to import any UHT milk, it will undermine the viability of milk rounds somewhere in the country to the detriment of consumers, the dairy industry and farmers? In those circumstances, will he bear in mind that consumers in remoter areas will have less access to milk if it is put on as a loss leader in supermarkets? Will he, therefore, take a firm stand and not concede one iota of these new suggestions?

Mr. Walker: If, as I believe is true, we are better and more efficient at producing milk on the farm than any other country in Europe and that we have the best dairies in Europe, including the Co-op dairies, we have considerable opportunities in the European market, including France. Despite what Madame Cresson suggested, it might be of much more joy to French housewives if good, fresh, English milk were available to them. That might be a possibility.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: If the Common Market succeeds in forcing this unsafe and unhygienic milk into Britain, would it not be a more permanent solution for our farmers if there were some means of dissuading European farmers from producing more milk, dairy products and other food for which there is no demand in Europe and for which we have to spend £7 million a day in subsidy to send to Third world countries?

Mr. Walker: That is an extraordinary remark. The European Court has stated categorically that we shall have the power to enforce whatever hygiene standards we consider appropriate. There is, therefore, no problem in terms of hygiene. More than most hon. Members, my hon. Friend tables question after question pointing out to the British housewife the joy of buying food at the cheapest price available in the world. On that basis, he should rejoice at cheap milk coming into the country.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a compulsory obligation to allow the entry of French UHT milk is in every way

contrary to the British national interest? Does he accept that the highest court in this land should be this Parliament, not some alien institution that takes a decision which causes him to scurry here to promise the urgent introduction of legislation? Does not this issue point to the folly of ceding some of the powers of this Parliament in 1972? Should not we seek to repatriate those powers as soon as possible so that decisions on what is in the interest of British milk producers are taken in the House of Commons?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman knows that when in office the Labour party decided to renegotiate our terms of membership, and as part of those terms the Labour Government accepted the jurisdiction of the European Court.

Mr. Hal Miller: Having listened to the protestations of Labour Members, does my right hon. Friend recollect that it was under a Labour Government that the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) allowed UHT cream into the country without apparent regard to health safeguards?

Mr. Walker: Fortunately, I have no responsibility for the activities of the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin).

Mr. Eric Deakins: Perhaps we can come back to the price negotiations in Brussels with which the Minister dealt cursorily in his statement. What are the major areas of disagreement between the member states and the Commission? Is the Minister opposing the continuation of the milk co-responsibility levy? What positive proposals has he put forward in these discussions to reduce the cost of the CAP both to the British housewife and to the British taxpayer?

Mr. Walker: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point, there are many conflicting views and much disagreement at this stage. The hon. Gentleman talks about my statement being cursory, but, as everyone knows, at this stage of the year there is a process of general rounds of the table, and everyone gives a long list of what they would like ideally to have, but of course none obtains the full list. That is the basis. It has gone on year after year, including those years when the Labour party was in power. It is perfectly reasonable. During the time that I have been responsible for the price negotiations, in real terns the increases in farm gate prices and in food prices to the British housewife have been much lower than during the time of my predecessors. I hope that that splendid trend will continue.

Liverpool, Wavertree (Circulation of Leaflet)

4 pm

Mr. Malcolm Thornton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Tuesday 1 February, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) raised a point of order with you about the circulation in part of his constituency of a leaflet by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) to support his candidature for a seat that has not yet been officially designated by the Boundary Commission. You gave a clear steer in your remarks when you said:
Since 4 o'clock a Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Services, to which I turn for advice on such matters, has been considering this very leaflet".
You said that you would be advised on it at some future stage. You went on to say:
I think that it goes further than the hon. Gentleman thinks. We want some guidelines for hon. Members who will be in real difficulty. Perhaps at a later date I shall make a statement to the House when I have received the distilled wisdom of the Committee and have had a conference on the matter".—[Official Report, 1 February 1983; Vol. 36, c. 156.]
To many of us who often find ourselves in a difficult position, that was most useful.
I learnt at lunchtime today—in other words, long after your statement—that the same leaflet had been circulated in a part of my constituency of Garston. I regard that as a flagrant abuse of everything that this House stands for. I regret that the hon. Member for Edge Hill is not in his seat. I put a note on the board informing him that I was raising this point of order. Although it is not a matter for the House that the hon. Gentleman's unseemly scramble for the seat has caused grave embarrassment to his leader and his alliance friends, it is a flagrant abuse of the conventions of the House, and it has been taken in

deliberate contravention of your statement of last week. It is a matter to which, in my opinion, the House should have regard.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Besides distributing this scurrilous leaflet in my constituency, purely for political ends, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton), since your ruling, has accepted an invitation to address students from one of the wards in my constituency, which is not in his constituency and which—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a mistake. The only thing that concerned me was the use of the House of Commons emblem for distribution of leaflets by hon. Members. Wherever hon. Members distribute them is their concern. Normally, as I said privately, people like to issue their own party propaganda without bringing the House into it. The Sub-Committee to which I referred decided to refer the matter to the major Services Committee. I understand that it is deliberating on the matter. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will bear that in mind until I am in a position to give a ruling. As the house will know, I do not automatically say to the House what the Committee says to me, but I need its advice before I give a ruling to the House.

Later—

Mr. Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on the point of order raised earlier—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We finished with that matter a while ago. I certainly was not joining in comments on the content of the document. I want to make that clear. What was brought to my attention was the use of the emblem of the House for party political purposes. That is the matter under consideration, and we must leave it there for the time being.

Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 2 February, the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. dealt with three instruments: the draft African Development Bank (Immunities and Privileges) Order, the draft Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order, and the draft Commonwealth Foundation (Immunities and Privileges) Order, all of 1983. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said:
One would have thought that if there was a point of substance … the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments would give us adequate time to make inquiries and to consider its report".—[Official Report, Sixth Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c, 2 February 1983; c. 7.]
We had reported two of the instruments that were being considered, and there was some criticism by the hon. Member for Hamilton and others. I want to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to this matter, and I understand that the Chairman of the Committee has also done so.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments considered the instruments on 25 January and wrote to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 26 January. This was commented on as though the Committee were writing to an outside body. Its members should have realised that we are bound by our orders to refer the matter to the appropriate Department before we can report the instrument to the House. We considered the instrument on 1 February and took evidence, and ensured that a typescript copy of our views was available in the Vote Office that night, which was the earliest possible opportunity. We were not able to present the minutes of evidence because there was insufficient time. I want to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the following points.
The Committee was concerned that we should have been unreasonably and unjustifiably criticised, and asked me to place the correct position on the record. We are writing to all the Members of the Committee about the matter. However, of course, it is the Government who dictate the time and allocation of debates. If you, Mr. Speaker, were to suggest that perhaps a minimum of five sitting days should elapse between the reporting of an instrument by the Joint Committee or the Select Committee and the date on which the instrument is debated, either on the Floor of the House or upstairs in Committee, I am sure that the Committee would welcome that. It would be a signal service to the House, for which the report is designed. The Government could not so allocate the time for debate of an instrument in a way that means that the Joint Committee simply could not undertake its work.

Mr. Speaker: I shall look into the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I think that there is nothing that I can do, but I shall consider what he has said.

London Councils (Use of Funds)

Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recollect, although it was very difficult for you to hear yesterday, in view of all the noise that was being made by people who had something to hide, the representations that I made to you on an application under Standing Order No 9. There is one aspect of that on which I need your guidance. You will remember that some weeks ago you and the House decided that evidence indicating that the Greater London Council might be distributing its funds on a politically discriminatory basis, according to how hon. Members might vote in this House, was a matter important enough and of such a nature that it should be referred to the Committee of Privileges, where it now lies. You will remember that one of the documents to which I referred yesterday has concrete evidence of the GLC deciding that it would distribute its funds on a politically discriminatory basis to those London boroughs whose councils happen to have a Labour majority. Therefore, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether I should send this document that I have in my hands now to you or to the Chairman of the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member of the House. I beg him not to send the document to me. He is aware, of course, that the Committee of Privileges is looking into the matter that the House asked it to consider. If he or any other hon. Member believes that he has help for the Committee of Privileges—I do not wish to add to its burdens—he should address it to that source rather than to me.

Publication of Wills

Sir Anthony Meyer: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make a new provision as to the law governing the publication of wills.
My Bill proposes to amend section 124 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 so as to provide that, although continuing to be open to inspection at the probate registry, wills will have their publication in the press restricted in such a way as to ensure that, unless the next of kin expressly authorises full publication of the estate's value and the details of legacies, the press will be allowed to publish only the fact that the will has been proved and information as to where any interested person can obtain details of any will which may concern him.
I have been struck, as I am sure many other hon. Members have, by the distress caused to individuals by the publication, particularly in the local press, of full details of exactly how much a recently lost and dearly loved husband, wife or parent was worth financially and just what he or she did with the money. I have had many letters on this subject, some of them very moving. They tell how the pain of bereavement is gratuitously added to by the embarrassment of unwanted publicity arising from the publication of such details.
Is such knowledge something that the public has either a need or a right to know? I cannot accept that the public has a right to such information. Morally it seems that the general public has no more right or need to know the size of a man's estate than it has to know the size of his bank balance or the details of his tax return. Both those matters would be of great interest to potential creditors and perhaps to those hoping one day to be legatees. Bank balances and tax returns are not published, and I hope that we are a long way from suggesting that they should be.
The attitude of Governments of both parties that no change is required in the law was strengthened by the Younger report on privacy in 1972. It is true that that committee recommended:
So far as the wide dissemination of the contents of wills by the press or any other agency is concerned, we do not think that there is a good case on grounds of privacy for imposing restrictions with regard to wills".
But that recommendation is preceded by a passage that says:

No reason, other than that it was of news value, was advanced by the press for the publication of the amounts of wills and identities of beneficiaries;
and by an even stronger passage which says:
This arbitrary publicity serves no good purpose and can be distressing and embarrassing to the deceased's relatives and beneficiaries: the publication of, say, a man's unconventional testamentary bequests or of the small estate of someone thought to have been of substance may be humiliating to the relatives; widespread knowledge of a large inheritance often leads to begging letters.
That is not the first report in which the conclusions hardly follow from what preceded them. I find it hard to accept the Younger committee's conclusions. We live in an age when privacy is subject every day to fresh intrusion. We all know far too many facts about one another—perhaps that is why we understand so little. What the press likes to call "investigative journalism", and what the rest of us call "snooping", is on the increase. That is why it has become much more important to push back the frontiers of privacy from the individual's doorstep.
People have a right to keep something of themselves to themselves, however much the mass media would like to have us all—themselves excepted—exposed to the full glare of X-rays at all times. Just because it has been accepted in the past that the publication of wills should be allowed as an exception to the normal rules of privacy, that is no reason why that encroachment, among a thousand others, should continue to be tolerated unless it is absolutely necessary—and that it cannot be, by any stretch of the imagination.
My Bill has the support of several women's organisations and will, I hope, meet with the approval of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Anthony Meyer, Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman, Mr. Michael Hamilton, Sir Raymond Gower and Mr. Clement Freud.

PUBLICATION OF WILLS

Sir Anthony Meyer accordingly presented a Bill to make new provision as to the law governing the publication of wills: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 25 February and to be printed. [Bill 76.]

Unemployment (East Midlands)

Mr. Frank Haynes: I beg to move,
That this House condemns Her Majesty's Government for pursuing disastrous economic and industrial policies that have increased unemployment in the East Midlands by 187 per cent. since May 1979, brought about the collapse of many companies, weakened traditional industries and resulted in 31 people chasing every notified vacancy; and calls upon the Government to abandon these polices which are so damaging to the region's propects.
You will probably remember, Mr. Speaker, that about two years ago the House debated unemployment in the midlands. Since that time the situation has become much worse. More people are out of work and there are redundancies right, left and centre. It appears that the Government have not done much to deal with the problem. They say that they cannot find money to do this, that and the other in the interests of working class people to whom a job is important. The worker in the family needs a job to look after his family and to live up to his responsibilities. At present about four million people with families to keep are on the dole, living on state benefits which are being financed by oil from the North sea when we should be using the proceeds of that oil to stimulate industry and jobs.
I have before me a list of redundancies in the east midlands. I shall refer to it, although I shall not deal in detail with all areas of the east midlands because my right hon. and hon. Friends will have the opportunity to do so during the debate. It is noticeable that engineering has been hit particularly hard. For example, Perkins Engines Group in Peterborough lost 150 jobs and BPC at Northampton lost 100 jobs in December 1981. British Aerospace in Lincolnshire lost 1,200 jobs in March 1982. Lesney Toys of Peterborough lost 1,100 jobs in April 1982. The British Steel Corporation in Corby lost 100 jobs and D. Scott (Stores) in Northampton lost 320 jobs in May 1982. In September 1982 General Motors lost 560 jobs and Raleigh Industries Ltd. in Nottingham lost 400 jobs. The list goes on.
It is amazing that in October 1982 Buxted Poultry in Gainsborough lost 500 jobs. It seems that the British people do not eat as many chickens as they used to, yet we are constantly being told how cheap they are nowadays. In October 1982 Perkins Engines lost a further 1,300 jobs. In November 1982 BSC in Corby lost a further 600 jobs. Those are the up-to-date figures provided by the Manpower Services Commission in Nottingham in January this year.
In Derbyshire, 11·8 per cent. of the working population is on the dole. In Lincolnshire 13·8 per cent. are on the dole, in Northamptonshire 12·4, in Leicestershire 10·9 and in Nottinghamshire 12·4. The current overall east midlands figure is 12·5.
This is a shocking record, considering the promises the Government made before the election. I hate to raise the poster argument again, but there was a poster saying that the Conservatives would get the people back to work. What have we had instead? The motion points out that the Government have increased unemployment in the east midlands by 187 per cent. since May 1979. I do not know what sort of answer we shall get for that from the Government Benches.
I have a firm in my constituency called Beaufort Engineering of Kirkby in Ashfield. A couple of weeks ago

the work force were told, at five minutes' notice, to pick up their tools and go. That is the sort of situation we have in industry at the moment, the sort of situation being supported by this Conservative Government. This firm is non-unionised. I have become the branch secretary. I have to meet all 82 workers laid off to explain exactly what they are entitled to and why this has happened. The receiver had been called in, although nobody had been told about it, and this meant that he had put his hands on everything and everything stopped. It is shocking that in a non-trade union firm the work force have no opportunity to find out what is going on and what they are entitled to. That was an added burden for me, although I did not mind taking it on because I represent them in the House.
The right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) talks about the restrictive practices of trade unions. He is contemplating legislation to deal with these "wicked" trade unionists. Let us look at the other side. I suggest that the Government are using similar restrictive practices to put people out of work and that it is high time they redirected their efforts towards getting people back to work in the interest not only of people's families but also of the country's economy.
A record number of small businesses failed last year, many of them—11,131—in the east midlands. The Government must be aware that their supporters, such as the CBI and the chambers of commerce, are saying that they should change direction with a view to getting industry and its workers back on their feet. I do not know how these things will be put right by the Government. Liquidations increased by 35 per cent. in 1982–200 firms a week, with all the accompanying jobs. We need answers to this kind of thing. The east midlands has had its share of job losses.
The editorial on page 12 of The Guardian of Monday 7 February makes quite interesting reading, saying that
our unemployment has grown at exactly twice the pace of unemployment in the OECD area as a whole and is now the highest of any major western country when traditionally it was merely average. The completion of new houses was at a lower ebb than in any year since 1947.
That hits the construction industry which is well represented in the east midlands. It continues:
Our manufacturing industry, once the basis of this country's strength, has been hardest hit of all by the Government's record interest rates and over-valuation of sterling. Manufacturing production is back at its 1965 level. Our manufacturers are now producing fully 19·7 per cent. less than they did in the monthly peak of 1979. Indicator after indicator describes the depths of our slump since 1979 and make merely mockery of the ministerial pronouncements which seek to take pride in such an alarming and destructive record. The prospect which faces us in 1983, unless there is a substantial shift in policy, is a period of continued stagnation while the rest of the world resumes growth.
The message is that the Government must change direction. Their monetary policy has failed. It has strangled industry and the work force with it, at the expense of the people's pockets, not the pockets of the Minister's friends and party supporters.
Yesterday I received a letter from the National Association of Youth and Community Education Officers concerning the Thompson report of the review group on youth service in England, Cmnd. 8686, in which Peter Pay says:
I must however, express disappointment that the Government has not announced plans to introduce the legislation which the report urges to bring about fundamental changes in the services offered to young people.


Not long ago I introduced a ten-minute Bill on adult education which did not receive parliamentary time. What I said then remains true. The fact that we have 2 million adults who can neither read nor write is a shocking state of affairs. Even if they manage to obtain an interview, they are not given the job because they cannot read or write. The Government have a responsibility to do something about this. We keep having technology rammed down our throats when the greater need is to educate people properly to prepare them for what is to come.
On recent developments in the water industry, here again we have that—I do not know what to call him, other than the right hon. Member for Chingford.

Mr. Eric G. Varley: Dracula.

Mr. Haynes: Count Dracula. It would appear that he is concentrating on the 27,000 workers in the water industry. He would be a lot better off, and so would this country, if he concentrated his efforts on the four million people who are looking for work instead of interfering in something he should keep his nose out of.
If he and the Secretary of State for the Environment had kept their noses out, we would not be in this position. Something would have been settled. Before the general election, the Government said that they would favour free collective bargaining, but the trade union representatives were not allowed to negotiate a decent pay increase for the workers in their industry. The Secretary of State for Employment should concentrate on finding work for those four million people who are out of work.
Private industry is obviously preparing for a new downturn. In October, manufacturing production fell to a 15-year record low, and was more than 19·7 per cent. below the level in May 1979, thus continuing two years of stagnation. Investment intentions have been revised downwards. Six months ago manufacturers planned to increase investment by five per cent. in 1983. They now plan to cut it back by five per cent. Revised figures for capital spending show that the three-year fall in investment continued in the third quarter of 1982. Increases in stocks held by manufacturers and distributors are normally a good indicator of an impending upturn, but the latest figures show that both manufacturers and distributors were running down their stocks rapidly in the third quarter of 1982.
I am a Member sponsored by the National Union of Mineworkers and am very proud of it. It was a great pleasure to spend the last two days with the Nottinghamshire miners at a two-day conference, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). There were several debates, but one of the most important matters under discussion was the Vale of Belvoir coalfield. It is essential that the Government should get the message that the development of the Belvoir coalfield is desperately needed right now. In my constituency, there are pits that will soon be exhausted. We must be able to place those workers somewhere else. I have already had two closures fairly recently. The labour from the two pits that closed has been soaked up by other pits, but that cannot go on for ever. Other pits can only soak up out-of-work miners for so long. Therefore, the Belvoir coalfield must be developed, and it is time that the Government pulled their finger out and got something done.
There was also an emergency resolution at the conference. There was a first class debate that was relevant to a question that was put to the Prime Minister yesterday. The debate was on Mr. Ian MacGregor's possible appointment as chairman of the National Coal Board. The way in which the Government leak everything that is going on is shocking. They leak like a colander. If they want to convince people or condition their thinking, there is a leak. I maintain that Mr. MacGregor's possible appointment is a leak. It looks as if the Prime Minister has sent for him with a view to appointing him to the NCB. Like my hon. Friends in Yorkshire, I want to pass on a message from the Nottinghamshire miners. Without a shadow of a doubt, they will not accept Mr. Ian MacGregor as chairman of the NCB. They want someone who knows what the industry is all about and who has worked in it. They are not prepared to accept anyone else.
If that fellow gets hold of the reins, there may be pit closures. He was the butcher of the steel industry and closed steel plants on the Government's orders. There was no question of a free hand. The Government's monetary policy was put into effect and he had instructions to close those plants, just as he will have instructions to close pits. We are not having it, and we will not accept it.
I hope that the Minister tells the Secretary of State that there will be one—I nearly said it, but I do not want to fall out with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—deuce of a row. When I talk about confrontation, I mean confrontation. The Nottinghamshire miners are not prepared to accept Ian MacGregor as chairman of the NCB and they made that clear yesterday. I am passing on that message to the House so that the Minister knows.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: We do not want Mac the Knife.

Mr. Haynes: To give my colleagues an opportunity to contribute, I shall conclude my remarks. Full employment in a free society was the central objective of the 1945 Labour Government after the wasted years of depression from war. The next Labour Government will face a challenge of similar dimensions. The TUC and the Labour party are offering the country a radical programme of economic and social reconstruction to reverse the catastrophic decline in output and to put our people back to work after the wasted years of monetarism.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Alison): I understand that it is the wish, at least of the Opposition Chief Whip, that ministerial speeches should be relatively brief. Therefore, I shall not spend quite as much time as the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) did in addressing the House, although that is no reflection on the amount of time that he took. That is his choice. However, I hope to pick up some of his points. If I do not cover them all, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will try to cover them at the end of the debate.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the OECD and quoted an article about the international economic environment that appeared, I believe, in the leader columns of The Guardian. It is clearly relevant, and I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman bothered to pick it out. We are in an extremely difficult world economic environment. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may moan about it,


but he deliberately introduced that element and I am merely taking up his remarks about Britain's relatively poor international performance in admittedly difficult world economic circumstances. He said that we had the worst record. The base date that the hon. Gentleman took was May 1979, which is the base date in the motion. Let us take another major industrial country, West Germany, which has always been held up to us as the model. It has had a Social. Democratic Government for many years and it is held up as the model of industrial efficiency, productivity and so on.
If economic ingredients such as solid sound finance, sensible trade unions and good industrial relations could solve a country's problems, they would have solved Germany's. Instead, unemployment in West Germany has increased more than in Britain in the period covered by the motion. Since May 1979, unemployment in West Germany has increased by 144 per cent. compared with 138 per cent. in Britain's. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ashfield introduced the international dimension and I am merely picking up that point. No one wants to crow over what is happening in Germany, but the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends groan when we refer to the international dimension.
Let us consider what happened when the international position was much more favourable. I refer to the pre-1979 oil shock period. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the world economic environment is irrelevant, he should bear in mind that all the factors that the Labour party considers relevant to boom and expansion, and all the factors produced in the latest TUC document and in the special economic plan introduced by the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), were present before 1979, the base date in the motion. For example, world trade was buoyant during the pre-1979, pre-oil shock period. Sterling was steadily depreciating. I have been in the House since the early 1960s, which saw the first major post-war Labour Government since Attlee. Not only was sterling depreciating, there was one major devaluation. The hon. Gentleman is pushing for buoyant trade and a depreciating rate of sterling, including a devaluation, but that happened in the period from the mid-1960s to 1979.
The hon. Gentleman said that the Government should spend more money to help unemployment. During the period up to 1979, a growing proportion of the gross national product was used in public expenditure. Between the mid-1960s and the time when the Labour Government left office, the proportion of GNP used in public expenditure increased from about 35 per cent. to about 45 per cent. The hon. Gentleman asked for a greater proportion of national income to be spent publicly, but that happened during that period. There was even the forerunner of the so-called national economic assessment. There was the national plan and the social contract. There were several phases of prices and incomes policy. There was even the whole gamut of beer and sandwiches at No. 10.

Mr. John Prescott: What was the level of unemployment?

Mr. Alison: All the things that the hon. Member for Ashfield believes in, and which I have listed, were present during the period up to 1979.

Mr. Prescott: What happened to unemployment?

Mr. Alison: I will tell the House what happened to unemployment. From 1966 to 1970 unemployment in the east midlands doubled.

Mr. Prescott: It doubled from what?

Mr. Alison: It doubled from 1 per cent. to 2·2 per cent.—[Interruption.] Opposition Members laugh because unemployment doubles. If it doubled from one coal miner or one engineering employee to two such people, would not the hon. Member for Ashfield complain? Of course he would—[Interruption.] From 1966 to 1970, unemployment doubled in the east midlands. Think of that in human terms. It remained static during the period of the Heath Government—indeed, it dropped slightly from 2·2 per cent. 2 per cent. Another Labour Government took office in 1974, and by 1979 it doubled again to 4·5 per cent. Therefore, it doubled twice under exactly the same prescription that the Opposition are now putting forward. It obviously did not work then, and will not now. It is a complete pretence by the Opposition that their past record is faultless and that the remedy they repeatedly tried will produce some miraculous cure. That is entirely phoney and bogus.
The hon. Member for Ashfield asked the Government to spend more money. The Opposition spent a peat deal of money, but it had little effect. The Government are doing what they can. Indeed, they are spending a great deal of money in the east midlands region. It has been given nearly £20 million in regional development grants, and received offers of assistance of £18·6 million under section 7 and a further £19 million under section 8 of the Industry Act 1972. The Government have also recognised that parts of the region suffer from urban deprivation. No doubt hon. Members will raise that point later. Nearly £10 million has been allocated for 1982–83 to Leicester and Nottingham under the urban programme. Indeed, those two cities are, respectively, the second and third largest of all the 15 programme authorities. About a third of the allocation will go to schemes designed to assist the cities' economic base, with particular emphasis being placed on providing sites for urban industrial expansion. In addition, the programmes in the two cities will also be funding schemes of direct assistance to small businesses, and operating in conjunction with the MSC's youth training scheme and community programme for the longer-term unemployed. The urban programme can also be of particular benefit to ethnic minorities. More than £2½ million of the programme's funding in Leicester and Nottingham next year has been allocated to some 80 schemes specifically for ethnic minorities.
The hon. Gentleman asked what hope there would be for the future. He gave a long list of expected redundancies. Despite the difficult circumstances—which I believe to be due entirely to Britain's lack of competitiveness and the economic environment to which the hon. Gentleman referred—during the past 12 months more than 87,000 people were placed in employment by the MSC's employment service, and many more will have found jobs by other means. So the news is not all bad, even though the hon. Gentleman tried to make it sound that way. It is no longer all about redundancies and firms closing down.
There are good-news stories, too. Expansions are taking place, new projects are being set up and new jobs are being created to replace those that halve been


lost—although obviously not as fast as we would wish. There is the promise of long-term job creation in the Corby area. The way that it has come to grips with being a one-industry town is a success story. A project to build a Wonder World park will provide eisure—[Interruption.] Opposition Members are laughing at a project that will create employment. They should keep quiet. Any project—even if it has a silly label—that will produce jobs in the locality is important. It will provide leisure and educational facilities for a wide area. It is scheduled to start in 1983 and could eventually employ 3,000 workers—[Interruption.] Opposition Members are laughing because the project has a funny title. They are not remotely interested in anything other than the slogans of politics.
In November last year, the Duke of Edinburgh opened—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Alison: I am not giving way. Opposition Members will have an opportunity later to explain their cynical laughter at a project that will create 3,000 jobs.
The Duke of Edinburgh opened the new headquarters and warehouse of RS Components Limited, which has transferred from London to Corby. It expects to create up to 1,000 jobs in the town during the next few years. In addition, more than 300 jobs are likely to be available when the new Central television studios open in Nottingham this year.
We still have a long way to go before such assistance will begin to bear fruit in terms of a healthier east midlands. In the meantime, we are protecting those hardest hit by the recession—especially the youngsters—with our special employment and training measures. Some 16,000 people in the midlands are currently benefiting from the temporary short-time working compensation scheme, the job release scheme, the community programme, the community industry and the young workers scheme.
In addition, 42,000 young people started courses under the youth opportunities programme in the east midlands in 1981–82, and 29,000 started courses between 1 April and 31 December last year. The MSC plans to provide 51,000 YOP places in 1982–83 in the east midlands, of which 7,700 will be the new one-year training places under the youth training scheme.
I advise my hon. Friends who have listened to the presentation of the hon. Member for Ashfield that the record of the Labour Government was successively to double unemployment in the east midlands in the 1966–70 period, and to double it again in the 1974–79 period. However, the Labour party is prepared to shelter under the fact that 1 per cent. to 2 per cent. sounds small in statistical terms, whereas it can cover tens of thousands of individuals. That is the truth of the attitude that Labour Members have taken. They are interested not in the realities of unemployment but in crude sloganising and in bogus statistics. I hope that my hon. Friends will be able to expose the fallacy of the Opposition's motion.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I tell the House

that I understand that it is desired that the debate should end at about 7 o'clock to make way for another important debate, on the northern region. Many hon. Members wish to speak in this debate, so I make a special appeal for short contributions.

Mr. Tom Bradley: I speak in support of the motion, which quite rightly condemns the policies that have produced the social and economic consequences, outlined by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), that have flowed relentlessly since the members of the Government were shanghaied by a group of monetarist advisers shortly after taking office.
The motion refers specifically to an increase of 187 per cent. in unemployment throughout the east midlands since May 1979. This overall figure hides some interesting variations. Since the Government lost control of the economy, unemployment has increased in Derbyshire by 213·5 per cent., in Leicestershire by 188 per cent., in Lincolnshire by 108 per cent., in Northamptonshire by 259 per cent.—much of which is attributable to Corby—and, finally, by 146 per cent. in Nottinghamshire.
Throughout the region, one in eight persons is unemployed. If we accept the understood figure of the cost of someone on the dole being £5,000 per annum, this means that the joblessness in the east midlands is now costing about £940 million a year. We all know that that does not tell the full story because the compilation of unemployment figures is on a phoney basis. In compiling figures, the Government continually ignore four categories of unemployed. First, there are the jobless people, who are registered as unemployed but who are not drawing social security benefits. Secondly, there are the hidden unemployed who are actively seeking work but who are not on the official register. Thirdly, there are people on temporary, make-work programmes without a real full-time job. Finally, there is that distressing group of people who have become so discouraged by the slump that they have given up all hope of getting a job. Thus, the circumstances are far worse in the east midlands, as they are in the rest of the country, than the figures would portray.
Taking account of the categories that I have described, in the east midlands the real, not doctored, unemployment figures should properly be in excess of 320,000. In the east midlands, I represent part of the city of Leicester. I have no wish to become too parochial because I have always eschewed that stance during my time as an hon. Member. However, Leicester was traditionally a prosperous area, but it now presents a bleak picture with 27,155 unemployed, which is 11·4 per cent. of the working population. The county has nearly 40,000 unemployed, which is 10·9 per cent. The important feature is that unemployment throughout Leicestershire is increasing at a faster rate than that throughout the rest of the region. There is no sign of any short-term improvement.
In January 1983 unemployment rose by 855 people, as against 600 in January of last year. Unemployment and job losses thoughout Leicestershire have increased alarmingly since 1979, notably in textiles and engineering—industries that have proved vulnerable to high exchange rates, high interest rates and low cost imports. It has often been said that Leicester is robust because of its diversity of small business. However, such businesses have been extremely vulnerable to cash flow problems. The failure rate among


new small firms set up in Leicester is very high. No fewer than 80 per cent. fail in their first two or three years of existence. More than one third of the unemployed have been jobless for more than a year and 14 per cent. for more than two years. That figure includes the age group of the 55-year-olds and over, for whom the prospects are very poor.
The motion refers to the weakening of traditional industries. Certainly and sadly that is true of the footwear industry, which used to predominate in Leicester, as it did in many towns in Northamptonshire, where I live. Curiously, the footwear industry combines all the virtues extolled by the Government. It has relatively low wages, high productivity and a peaceful labour force, yet it is almost flat on the floor. Why is that? Perhaps the Minister will deal with that point later.
In the two years to June 1982 there was a drop of 20 per cent.—one fifth—in employment in the footwear industry. This decline in activity has resulted in many closures throughout the industry. Over 50 footwear premises have closed in the east midlands alone in the past year, both large and small businesses, including some well-known names. The decline of the industry has also led to a rise in the cheap, low-cost import penetration that continues unabated despite the representations made to the Ministers. Further contraction of the footwear industry will destabilise suppliers of components and leather materials and there are fears, certainly in trade union circles, that the whole industry is in danger of collapsing in on itself.
I use this opportunity to urge the Minister to heed the current trade union representations that are being made to him on the temporary short-time working compensation scheme, which will help avoid the fear of further contraction. There is an urgent need for training programmes to cope with both the young and the redundant workers in need of retraining. However, at a recent meeting with county officials and county councillors, it was revealed to the Leicestershire Members of Parliament that the skillcentre allocation forecast for Leicester showed that many courses have been suspended in a wide range of skills, from bricklaying to sewing machine repairs. I concede at once that it could be that there is little or no scope for work in these trades or professions but, surely alternatives could be examined and put forward before reducing so drastically the training opportunities available for unemployed people in the area.
Above all, I appeal to the Government to stop the cosmetic tinkering that is going on to try to deal with a serious position. There are literally hundreds of schemes and projects that can be embraced under a real job creation programme. There could be schemes for house repairs and renovations, particularly in city areas, and a heat insulation programme could be introduced designed to conserve energy in public buildings, private homes and industry. There should be a great deal more housing investment and a large scale programme for the general sewerage system. Last but by no means least, a powerful case can be established for a major road repair programme. The list could be far-reaching and endless. All we need is a Government with the intent and will to carry it out. I hope that the forthcoming general election will provide us with one.

Mr. William Whitlock: I recall that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer presented his first Budget in 1979 my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said that the policy which the Government intended to pursue was a gamble
equivalent to a man robbing the gas meter in order to put his money on a horse that he is not even sure will run and that he has seen fail in its previous outings".—[Official Report, 12 June 1979; Vol. 968, c. 266.]
The gamble has failed dismally and yet members of the Government continue to assert, as the Minister did today, that the economy works best when ever larger parts of it do not work at all.
We are supposed to be leaner and fitter. We are leaner to the point of emaciation in some areas. We are most certainly not fitter when ever more productivity capacity is closed down and areas of the country are turned into an industrial wasteland.
Luddism has come to mean the senseless destruction of industrial potential. The original Luddites were described in 1812 by Lord Byron, who knew them well, as
poor wretches, forced into absolute want, meagre with famine, sullen with despair, careless of life and famished into guilt.
The Government have gone in for Luddism on an unprecedented scale, not for compelling personal reasons, as the Luddites did, but solely out of their desire to adhere to dogma which has been proved over and over again to be wholly invalid.
I wish to comment on only one of the traditional east midlands industries, and on only some of its problems. The hosiery and knitwear industry has been centred in the east midlands for over 400 years. One person in eight of those employed in productive industry in the region is employed in the hosiery and knitwear industry. The region has more textile workers than any region in the country, more even than areas such as Lancashire and Yorkshire, which are considered traditionally to be textile producing areas. The industry has been crucified by Government policy and in addition by the yawning gaps in the import restriction arrangements, by fiddles, quota-dodging and every device designed to ensure that imports of foreign textiles compete unfairly against British textiles in the British market, which is the most open in the world. All that the Government can say to that industry, in effect, is "Compete or go under."
I wanted to deal with the industry's record and with its problems, hopes and fears under multi-fibre arrangement 3 but I feel that it would take too long when I look around the Chamber and see how many other hon. Members wish to speak. I shall deal with what some of the EC countries are doing to help their textile industries in ways that are, apparently, in defiance of the Common Market to net that we must not distort trade. Italy sends to the United Kingdom greater quantities of textiles than any other EC country.
The price of those Italian textiles is often lower than those coming from our traditional suppliers in low-cost countries. They create ever more serious problems for our industry, which is not subsidised as the Italian industry is. For the greater part of the past 10 years the Italian man-made fibre producing sector has been heavily subsidised. Montefibre, the state-owned fibre producer, has in some years during that period sustained losses equal to 50 per cent. of its turnover. During that time it has received


£1,500 million in state aid. There are now rumours of a major new scheme to support the Italian garment producing industry.
The French have introduced a scheme of rebates on social charges for the textile and clothing industry only, the cost of which is estimated to be £220 million. There are also large subventions to individual companies to encourage capital investment and reorganisation.
The Belgians have recently introduced a scheme which makes £90 million available to the textile industry in the first year. It is a massive subsidy which, if extrapolated on the British scene, would produce a figure of £550 million in subsidy. It would appear that the Dutch are preparing to subsidise their textile industry.
There is a growing trend in EC countries to introduce sectoral aid specifically for textiles. No such Government help is available in this country. It is small wonder, therefore, that the textile industry, particularly the hosiery and knitwear industry, tends to look ahead with considerable fear.
Throughout the period of the operation of MFA 2 Turkey, an EC associate member, refused to co-operate in restraining its textile exports to the Community. It behaved in a wholly maverick way. In the absence of the Turkish Government's co-operation, the EC Commission informed the Turkish authorities of the level of its exports within group one of the MFA below which the EC would not take action. However, in 1982, although the notified access to the United Kingdom of category four products—tee shirts, vests and so on—was 1·2 million pieces, 4·5 million pieces are estimated to have entered the United Kingdom from Turkey. So, one country which has refused to cooperate is seen to succeed in gaining greater access, to the detriment of those countries which have observed the regulations. The Government must take notice and do something about it.
China is another threat. It is already probably the largest producer of textiles and garments in the world and has the potential to wipe out the whole of the European trade if the problem is not carefully watched. I hope that, in the renegotiations of the EC-China textile agreement, which expires at the end of this year, Ministers will have that threat from China very much in mind.
It is imperative that they defend the British industry as determinedly as Ministers in other European countries defend their industries when they are under threat. Unless the United Kingdom textile industry can enjoy aid schemes matching those available to its EC competitors, it will increasingly decline with even more disastrous consequences for the east midlands, where, since the Government came into office, the hosiery and knitwear industry has lost 12,000 jobs.
All that the industry asks for is fair play. We look to Ministers who have not so far shown a consciousness of the problem to begin to ensure that the industry which is so important to the east midlands gets fair play.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: It is natural that unemployment should dominate the debate because our region suffers grievously from it. All parties would unite in efforts to cure this blight, but first we must recognise a few fundamental and general realities.
The east midlands depends not only on textile exports as the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) mentioned, but on engineering exports. In Lincoln, we export 50 per cent. or more of everything we make in engineering. If one adds components that go to other exports elsewhere in the country, the proportion is even larger. The fundamental reality for the east midlands is that we have to beat our overseas competitors. We have to be competitive with those who are trying to beat us.
Tremendous strides in competitiveness have undoubtedly been made over the past few years. Productivity in Lincoln and elsewhere in the east midlands has greatly improved. Many restrictive practices have gone. That has been helped not only by the determination of management to face up to the very real problems, but by the moderation and good sense of the work force. Improving our performance is a tough and long-lasting process, but we can have great hope in the progress that has been made.
We must then sell ever more effectively the goods that we make. The great cloud looming over the horizon is the growing trend for protectionism. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North mentioned the wish for import controls against textiles, but he must be reminded that the textile industry is perhaps the most protected in Britain. If we start to put up trade barriers and introduce import controls for engineering products we will not have markets open to us to sell those goods on which so much of the east midlands depends.
Not only is there a growing trend towards protectionism, but one senses, too, a growing trend against Europe. Here again, if we want markets we must stand by our membership of the Common Market, not only because it is our biggest market and our fastest growing market, but because the east midlands depends so much on foreign investment. If Britain ceases to be a member of the Common Market, those foreign firms will not come to invest in our industry.
I shall give one example. Everyone in the east midlands wants a new car plant in south Humberside. We want Nissan to come there. We have the engineering skills and the moderation to make that factory work well, but if we are not a member of the Common Market Nissan will not come. Therefore, the fundamental reality is that we must be competitive, we must have open but fair trade, we must stand against protectionism and we must, if we want to protect jobs, retain our membership of the Common Market.
It is fair to look from the general to the particular. I am not shy about being parochial in a regional debate. There may be floods outside one's house, but any family is first concerned with the water in its own kitchen. I wish to consider some aspects that will help to alleviate unemployment in the east midlands.
First, with regard to communications, while I welcome the fact that a bypass for Lincoln is going ahead and that work will commence early next year, the whole region needs better links between the A1 and the M1. We need that link by Huntingdon through Corby to go ahead. We want a link further north between those two roads. We need improvements between Lincoln, Newark, Nottingham and Leicester. I welcome the efforts of my Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) to get agreement to the bypass around his constituency, which will help those links.
We also need to maintain an effective and efficient railway system. We all know that the extreme proposals put forward by Serpell will not be put into effect—

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: Why did the hon. Gentleman not vote against them?

Mr. Carlisle: —but it is right to examine the railways, to make them efficient so that they serve our region with greater effectiveness.
We also need training so that when we emerge from the recession we have the skills. I am glad that the Government have done so much for information technology centres, but I ask them to consider one proposal. It is important to help those in middle age who, after some years in engineering, are made redundant. Is it possible to tack on to the information technology centres training in the new technologies for people in middle age, for example, in electronics?
In the same way, we are doing much to help small businesses. I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Industry my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) is present. If engineering workers are made redundant and are starting a small business they need help in the first year. I urge my hon. Friend to extend the enterprise allowance as rapidly as possible.
Tourism is an important consideration. The east midlands tourist board does a good job and tourism will provide a continuing number of jobs in the region. Hon. Members are wrong to scoff at Wonder World at which, when it is built and employing 3,000 people, they will have great fun. The east midlands tourist board advertises the region and, more importantly, it generates a great deal of cash from its own activities. It is necessary to sustain it at a time of recession. I ask my hon. Friend to talk to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade to ensure that the budget for the east midlands tourist board is not cut.
We must alleviate the hardship of unemployment. I am glad that the youth training scheme is taking off. The prospects for it in the region are good. But I am as much concerned with the longer-term unemployed. The community programme is getting off to a good start in Lincoln and Lincolnshire, with 100 people on it now and an expansion to 400 people quite soon. It must be watched closely because it is making use of those people for the benefit of the community and for their own benefit.
It is fair in a debate of this nature to end more specifically with one's own constituency. Lincoln is a fine historic city with a considerable investment in engineering skills. It mirrors some of the problems and opportunities that face Britain. It has old established engineering companies that are wrestling desperately with the world recession. I am glad that many are adapting to and modernising for the tough trading conditions that exist now. We also have industrial estates with newer businesses that must be encouraged, although their future looks better. Luckily, we also have a foothold in new and high technology and in electronics. That area is clearly growing and employment in those skills is increasing, which must be welcomed. As in other places, the east midlands has a growing service and tourism sector.
My constituency is a well-balanced community with a skilled and moderate people. It is a good place for people and businesses. The standard of living is high and we welcome anyone who wishes to come to Lincoln. They

will be happy there. I say that not only because it is my constituency, but because it is true of much of the east midlands. The people and places have much the same quality as Lincoln and, for those reasons, the east midlands has a hopeful future. That will become increasingly self-evident as we emerge from the recession.

Mr. Raymond Ellis: One thing that we can say about the speech of the Minister of State is that it was consistent with the track record of the Government on such matters. We expected a repetition of the same old tired, barren and negative replies that do not help to solve the problem and do not even help the Government's case. The problems seem to be blamed on Governments of long ago. It is true that no Opposition Member was happy with the unemployment level under the Labour Government, but, compared with the dimensions of today's disaster, the period from 1974 to May 1979 was one of halcyon days or comparative Utopia. At least the total of one million unemployed then was a real figure and not a massaged figure. Had the previous Government applied the same cosmetic measures of job schemes and so-called work experience, and had they used the same vanishing cream that this Government used to remove the long-standing unemployed from the statistics, in May 1979 the official total of unemployed would have been zero.

Mr. Bill Homewood: It would have been negative.

Mr. Ellis: Yes, or only 1 per cent.
The stock excuse that we hear today is that the problems must be blamed on protectionist measures taken by other Governments. It is said that if President Reagan would bring down American interest rates, all would be well. The truth is that this Government started all that before President Reagan came to office. They were in the business of high interest rates from the word go. Then they have the gall to complain when other countries retaliate. The latest excuse, which we heard from the Prime Minister when she was confronted with the new unemployment figures and which we heard from the Minister today, is that the rate of increase is worse in Germany. That is true. Are they telling us—I hope so—that the German worker is no longer as productive, efficient and hard-working as the British worker? As we all know, what matters is the total of unemployed and not just the temporary increase in rates. With the massive unemployment that we have in Britain, it is almost impossible to keep up the same rate of increase month by month, although the Government try their best.
The latest official figures for the area that includes my constituency were released on 3 February and show that the number of unemployed increased in one month from 11,100 to 11,578—from 12·5 per cent. to 13·4 per cent.—while at the same time official vacancies went down from 401 to 266. The position is bound to become worse. We shall soon be unable to discover employment in my constituency with the aid of a microscope, never mind a bicycle.
On top of the latest figures, there has been a rapid deterioration in the past week. Not only has the British Steel Corporation announced that it will decimate the work force at the Renisham plant in my constituency in April,


but the National Coal Board—the largest employer in the area—announced a few days ago that it will close five out of the remaining 11 coal mines in north Derbyshire. The hit list contains mines such as Arkwright and Westthorp in my constituency, and Ireland, Whitwell and Pleasley in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Is it only a matter of weeks since the chairman of the NCB told a Committee of this House that the board did not have a hit list? Perhaps it is not a hit list, but a shorter list of pits that the board intends to keep open. Was it only a few weeks ago that the president of the National Union of Mineworkers was accused of scaremongering? The facts cannot be denied. Five out of 11 pits are to be closed, and my constituents work in all of them. They will not go overnight, but the first moves are already being made at Arkwright colliery and it is intended that all five will go within a few years. They will be closed, MacGregor or no MacGregor.
The knock-on effect on the other industries in the area that are ancillary to and dependent upon the coal mines means that they will also fold. There are no plans to replace the capacity in north-east and north Derbyshire and there is no guarantee that the miners will be transferred to other jobs. There will be no hope for the lads who have spent all their lives in the industry, unless, for a change, the Government fully recognise the crisis and there is an immediate reversal of the policies that have created that crisis. The prime evil that confronts our nation is not inflation, the balance of payments, the level of the pound or public expenditure. The catastrophe that faces us today is the deliberate destruction of the nation's wealth-producing industries that has been brought about by the Government's mad monetarist policies. Monetarism cannot break the capitalist trade cycle, and it is becoming clear as the years go by that capitalism cannot control capitalism. If the Government cannot reverse their policies and go for growth immediately in the interests of the nation, they should get out of the way and give Socialism a chance.

Mr. Michael Latham: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Ellis) stuck up strongly for his constituency and he will not be surprised if I do the same. Any debate on the east midlands must involve its most serious problem—indeed any region's most serious problem—which is the level of unemployment. There is no point in mincing words about this. The current level is wholly unacceptable and is still rising. Under the new system of counting, unemployment in Melton Mowbray in January was 11 per cent., and in the western part of my constituency it was about 7·7 per cent. Both figures are below the average for the east midlands, let alone for the rest of the nation. The Melton figure is almost the same as for Leicestershire. Although many areas including parts of Leicestershire are worse off than Melton, the figures remain dreadful and there is no room for complacency or inaction.
The British people understand well that there is a world recession and that many other western countries face grave problems. They do not favour wild, inflationary spending sprees that would throw away the hard-won improvements

in competitiveness and productivity. Nevertheless, they believe that Governments must be completely involved in the struggle to reduce unemployment. I share their view.
The forthcoming Budget will be a crucial test for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. No doubt he will favour a cautious approach—he would be right to do so. He will want to increase the spending power of the less well off by raising tax thresholds. I hope that he will ease the burden on industry by reducing the national insurance surcharge further. There is also scope for more investment in construction infrastructure, such as roads and sewers and in energy conservation, with insulation measures coming top of the list of priorities. Construction is an especially labour-intensive industry that could make a significant contribution to job creation without creating inflation and without sucking in imports.
On the local scene in Leicestershire, there are construction projects that need an early go-ahead. The A6 bypass round Mountsorrel and Quorn should be a high priority. I am glad that Ministers are prepared to revoke the old pre-war routes that are now the subject of a public inquiry. The people of Mountsorrel and Quorn suffer intolerable environmental conditions, and the sooner the new road is built, the better. There is no room for a leisurely timetable. I welcome the vigour of Conservative transport Ministers in designating the new bypass. It is only five years since the previous Labour Minister told me that there were no plans for such a bypass.
We need speedy action to build the A52 bypass around Bottesford. The preferred route is now generally established. I should like my hon. Friends to get the public inquiry under way as soon as possible. Both roads have a considerable contribution to make to local commercial and industrial efficiency. They are environmentally essential and their construction could provide work for local contractors.
The main industrial proposal in my constituency is the new coal mine at Asfordby to which the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) referred. The decision in March by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, then the Secretary of State for the Environment, was fair and balanced. The National Coal Board has submitted a fresh application for Asfordby. I told it from the beginning that I would support it, provided that the local issues of spoil disposal, traffic and subsidence under Melton Mowbray were properly sorted out.
However, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Melton borough council, the alliance of objectors and others have formally objected and requested the Minister to call the application in for his decision. That would mean another public inquiry. I have often said publicly that I hope that another inquiry can be avoided, but I appreciate that there are strong demands for one. All I ask is that my right hon. Friend makes a decision soon. If he wants the project to proceed, he should say so now and we shall resolve the outstanding difficulties. If he believes that a new inquiry is necessary, we should fix the date as soon as possible. Local people and coal miners in Leicestershire are entitled to know what their future is to be, and they want to know now.
Two industries which are of principal importance to my constituents are agriculture and footwear manufacturing. I shall not refer to knitwear as that has already been dealt with excellently by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock). Agriculture, and its ancillary industries such as creameries and agricultural machinery


production, plays a major part locally. In general, the industry has made good progress under the present Government. My right hon. Friend has been a most effective Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
At the moment, a serious crisis faces pig producers. Some highly efficient and productive farmers face disaster because of a fall in demand for their products at a time of sharply rising feed costs. Stabilisation schemes such as that which the National Farmers Union has suggested are difficult to envisage for a commodity such as pigs, which has such a short cycle. They could lead to serious overproduction and waste. But there is a real need for measures. The only speedy answer may lie in a temporary cash subsidy per pig such as the previous Government introduced twice, plus a co-ordinated consumer marketing campaign.
For the shoe manufacturing industry, 1982 was disastrous. Imports, especially those from Common Market countries such as Italy, France and West Germany, soared. Between January and November 1982 imports from West Germany rose by 35 per cent., from France by 30 per cent. and from Italy by 14 per cent. The 42 million pairs of Italian shoes had a value of £192 million. They dwarfed all the rest. Our own shoe exports to Italy fell by 23 per cent.—we sold only 405,000 pairs.
The main reason for that was the strength of sterling, but also the structure of the British retailing industry which is dominated by the British Shoe Corporation. Britain is the easiest country in the world to which to export shoes. If the pound had not fallen sharply, it would have been necessary to erect some quotas or non-tariff barriers forthwith to prevent the collapse of our manufacturing capacity. I still favour taking a leaf out of the French book to make things harder for our competitors. Although I say it tongue in cheek, perhaps we should insist that all imported shoes are landed at the port of Melton Mowbray—it is only 60 miles from the sea—and all imported hosiery is landed at the port of Loughborough. We could insist that all labels of origin be printed both in modern English and Beowulf's Anglo-Saxon. If the French persist with their Poitiers nonsense and their other subtle non-tariff barriers, we shall have to consider playing the game as roughly as they do.
A sturdy defence of our home industries is essential. I hope to see a more hawkish attitude from Ministers in the next few months. We need more and more urgent and imaginative schemes to reduce the dreadful scourge of unemployment. No reasonable lines of progress should be discarded, even if they have been in the past. We should make much more use of job release schemes, and at earlier ages, flexible ages of retirement, temporary short-time working compensation schemes and similar methods of adapting to a world of recession and falling job opportunities
The Government should regard unemployment as the most pressing priority for political action. We cannot and must not be seen to lack determination or imagination to reduce unemployment. The new youth training scheme and the community programme are excellent and wide-ranging initiatives. The enterprise allowance scheme should be extended substantially and moved on from its present experimental stage.
We must always think of unemployment with the same urgency as the great Thomas Jefferson thought of the coming crisis about slavery. It is a
momentous question, like a fire bell in the night.

No one can ignore a fire bell, nor should they be thought to be ignoring the growing tide of the unemployed.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I shall deal with a few issues that affect firms in my constituency and one firm in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Fletcher) who is not here as he has been unwell. Hon. Members will know that I have been dealing with several issues that affect that area recently.
I do not know whether the Minister spoke on behalf of the Government. He did not do a good job. I do not know whether the Prime Minister will be happy about what he said. He is supposed to be in the business of electioneering. I do not know whether that has got round to him yet. He talked of 1·1 per cent. to 2 per cent. unemployment during the 1960s in an attempt to justify what is happening today. He lost me somewhere. I know that his job has been shifted about from one person to another, but the Minister let the side down.
I do not believe that the Minister understands that we are talking about a region that, in the 1930s, was where people used to cycle to from Wales and other areas because that was where the jobs were. They went to the west midlands as well. They will be sensitive areas in the next general election. The Minister did not appreciate that either.
Those are the areas where Mr. Tebbit senior, or, to be more accurate, the people who look like him, who really wanted jobs, went. They went to places such as Leicester, Nottingham, Kettering and the new town of Corby from Scotland and Wales, where there was high unemployment. The celtic fringes have traditionally had more than their fair share of unemployment.
The east midlands, once a prized jewel in terms of employment opportunities, has been wrecked and almost ruined by the Government. A world recession cannot be blamed. The Government took deliberate steps to throw people out of work in Nottingham, Leicester, Derby, Chesterfield and, yes, they even tried in Bolsover. There has already been reference to threatened pit closures in north Derbyshire. Yet the Government have the cheek to say that Arthur Scargill tried to scare the miners.
My hon. Friends are aware of the difficulties of trying to get out the voters in many areas. The attitude of some electors has always been to say that it does not matter which party they vote for, and that they can afford not to become too excited. They have argued, "We do not need to be radical. We do not need to get concerned about unemployment. It has never really hit us". My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North, (Mr. Whitehead) knows the difficulties of trying to get a few extra votes in a general election. I suspect that he will have less difficulty on the next occasion. This will be repeated in many constituencies throughout the east and west midlands. People want to get out of the mess that has resulted from the Government deliberately, coolly, and calculatedly throwing them on to the scrap heap.
The Government have wanted to instil fear and disillusionment and to lower the morale of those still in work. They have wanted to frighten them against seeking higher wages and to make them accept what the Government are prepared to dish out. All the fiddling of the figures by the Secretary of State for Employment will not make any difference when it comes to the march to the ballot box once the Prime Minister decides the date. In that


election, the east midlands and west midlands will have a new importance. It is no longer simply a quetion of north versus south in geographical terms. That has been a characteristic of general elections since the war. To some extent in the last election, but more so next time, a change is taking place. The pattern of voting in the north will be seen further south. The swing suffered by many of us in the last election will go the other way—with more besides.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) was speaking for the Social Democratic party. The hon. Gentleman stuck to constituency matters. That was wise. However, it will not make any difference. The electors will be searching for ways to recover their jobs. Who do the Tories think they are kidding when they talk of world recession? There have been all these Tory Budgets. It is true that there have not been 13. But the Government have tried to catch up the previous Labour Government. Without exception, the Budgets have taken demand out of the economy. No one in West Germany, Italy, the Soviet Union, or anywhere in the world, gave instructions to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that on Budget day and on mini-budget day they must cut demand in the British economy. It was a deliberate act by the British Tory Government to throw people out of work.
The recently published public expenditure White Paper shows that, notwithstanding all this rubbish about a world recession, another 280,000 people in Tory Britain will be thrown out of work. The Government cannot deny it. Did they get instructions from Comecon? Or from the Common Market? They might have done. They might conceivably have received such instructions but I reject the notion that a world recession is responsible for the 4 million people, maybe more, who now find themselves on the pile of human misery created by the Tory Government.
Taxes have gone up by £4 billion since the Government came to power. That was money taken out of the economy, not from those earning over £20,000 a year but from those with the propensity to spend, like the widows with less than £37 take-home pay, who, for the first time, are taxed on the paltry, little pension that they receive from the National Coal Board and other employers. That is why people are out of work in the east midlands and elsewhere. Those people will not forget.
Has the cut in services by the Government resulted from a world recession? Prescription charges have been increased by 650 per cent. or 600 per cent. I do not over-egg the pudding. It is around that figure. The Government have pushed up welfare costs and cut services left, right and centre. All the time they have been taking demand out of the economy and throwing people on the scrap heap in places like Melton Mowbray, Belper and other constituencies represented by Tory Members. By their votes, when they have marched through the Lobby to support the Government on Budget day and in cost-cutting programmes, every one of those Tory Members has taken part in an exercise to throw their constituents on to the scrap heap.
A friend of mine, a redundant toolmaker from Creswell—one of Thatcher's casualties—wrote to me today describing how he had tried to set up in business. He had listened to one of the tinpot commercials that the Government run explaining how the banks will give loans to set up businesses. My friend was told by the bank

manager, "Gerroff. How much money have you got?" The man explained that he had none but that he was simply following the Government's advice. He was sent out of the bank with a flea in his ear. I have been in touch with Derbyshire county council today. This meant that I could not appear on a BBC programme. However, it was more important that I should help my friend in Creswell to try and overcome the problem that he faces by putting him in touch with the Derbyshire county council committee, which deals with such projects.
There have been 30,000 casualties, small medium and large businesses, pushed aside by the Government. It is the highest number on record. Even in the 1930s, there were not the 30,000 company liquidations and failures that have occurred over the last three-and-a-half years. I am absolutely certain that the Government have received no instructions from east, west, north and south or from across the globe saying that these people should be chucked on the scrap heap. It has happened following the increase in value added tax and other measures pushed through the House by the Government.
When public expenditure is cut, 75 per cent. of the reduction which had been previously spent in the public sector—an example is local government—finds its way eventually into the private sector. The Government have taken away a lifeline. Some companies are leaner and fitter. They have sacked workers and still managed to keep their heads above water. The Hallam Group tells the Prime Minister that it is leaner and fitter and that it intends to submit a contract to build houses in the Falkland Islands. it feels that it is bound to succeed because the management at least—I am not sure about the workers, especially the 80 who got the sack—supported her through the war. The tender from the leaner and fitter Hallam Group, of Ilkeston, amounted to £3·8 million.
Another firm called James Brewster Associates—I think it knows someone in Government—comes along. It has never built anything previously. It has organised exhibitions and has no doubt bumped into some of these posh people in London—civil servants, Government officials, Government members. Who knows? It has not sent in accounts since 31 December 1979. It was breaking the law. To these people at the Hallam Group in Ilkeston, Mrs. Thatcher and her Tory Government say "Never mind about my 'Buy British' policy. That is not on the agenda today. We are going to give this contract to James Brewster" The components are to be brought from Sweden and the tender is higher. It has done all the things that the Prime Minister has always described from the Dispatch Box as wrong.
James Brewster Associates was breaking the law, but the Prime Minister and the Government told the people at Hallam's in Ilkeston to forget about the "Buy British" policy because that was not on the agenda and they intended to give the contract to James Brewster Associates although it imported the components from Sweden and had put in a higher tender. James Brewster Associates was doing all the things that the Prime Minister is always telling us are wrong and it was breaking the law. According to the Prime Minister, prosecuting letters have been sent to James Brewster Associates. Why have the Government not cancelled the contract and given it to the people at Ilkeston? That is what the Prime Minister should do, instead of talking about law and order and the rest of it. We could talk about all kinds of things in this debate, but there is just one trail—disaster. The Government have


caused more industrial havoc than the entire Nazi high command in the second world war—that is my indictment of them—and it was all deliberate and coolly calculated.
If people want to know where the money will come from to alter all this, I can tell them. We shall start with the £15,000 million being paid out in social security benefits of one kind or another, loss of taxation and all the other consequences of keeping 4 million people out of work. That is no way to run an economy. It is nonsense. We would use that money as we gradually brought people back to work.
I remember the comments in all the Tory newspapers—The Sun, the Daily Express, the Daily Mail and the rest. I shall not mention them all. They all come from the same stable. Those same newspapers, the BBC and the ITV say that Labour cannot get 4 million people back to work. I remember the stories that those same newspapers ran 15 years ago when, according to the Minister's faux pas, unemployment was 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. They said that Britain was moving towards the leisure era. They said that everyone would be working 20 hours per week when microchip technology came bursting in. The same newspapers, and in many cases the same editors, were telling us all about the new wonder age that was coming. They now say that such things cannot be.
I remember meeting the Sports Council, putting blue dots for golf curses and red dots for swimming pools all over the map of Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Northamptonshire. Leisure was the "in" thing on the map for the future, but now we are told that that cannot be. Of course it can. If 4 million people can be thrown on to the scrap heap in such a short time, it is possible to get them back, but it cannot be done through market forces or through being leaner and fitter. It must be deliberately planned, with a 35-hour working week, education grants, proper trade union rates of pay for people on YOPs, shorter hours and longer holidays. We would use that £15,000 million and scrap Trident and a few other unnecessary impediments at the same time. There are plenty of other ways, too. There must be plenty of money in this country. The Government have never allowed Lord Vestey to pay any tax. We see examples every day.
This debate is important, and so is the east midlands. It will be part of the swing in the next general election that will ensure the defeat of the Conservatives and give Britain the chance, with a Labour Government committed to Socialist policies, to plan its way out of the morass of unemployment into which the Government have dragged it.

Mrs. Sheila Faith: It is perhaps appropriate that I should speak after my neighbour to the north of my constituency, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), but I am sure that the House will understand when I say that I agree with very little of what he said.
There are no grounds for complacency and we are all extremely worried about the situation in the east midlands. The hon. Members for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Ellis) talked about the mining industry. I remind them that there were once 19 pits in my constituency. Now there is only one, but I am proud to say that it was the ex-miners of my constituency who set up the small and medium-sized industries that now provide employment there.
The Government must stick to their prudent policies and keep inflation down. Most important, they must keep interest rates down. That will do more for industry and for the creation of jobs than all the huffing and puffing that we have heard today. We hope that the Budget will give more help to industry and reduce taxation, preferably by raising thresholds. If that is possible, there should be a good case for further wage moderation next year. That is the best way to increase competitiveness and thus to create jobs.
My constituency has a very good record of moderate industrial relations. When I visit factories, I find no "us and them" feeling. Management and unions understand the problems and want to work together for the good of their firm. Legislation can work to restore the balance between employers and trade unions—the Government have already introduced such legislation—and it can also make the trade unions more democratic. No legislation, however, can change attitudes. I know that the attitude in my constituency is worth more to it than any Government help, development grant or regional aid. My constituency qualifies for no regional aid. I have nothing against such aid but I am proud that my constituency manages without it. Yet firms always seek to invest there, and once they are there and know how fertile the soil is they rarely move their factories.
No legislation can make people buy British goods. The trade unions' economic review has argued for extended import controls. I know that many connected with the textile factories are tempted in that direction, but it is not possible. We are great exporters and there would certainly be retaliation. That would set off creeping protectionism, which would damage the incipient recovery of the world economy.
Towards the end of last year the retail trade became much more buoyant. The change was caused by the lifting of hire purchase controls, the reduction in mortgage rates and the fact that wage increases were still greater than inflation. Unfortunaely, much of this money was spent on imported goods, which created jobs abroad. When people have more money to spend, they concentrate not on basic necessities such as housing, heating and food, but are able to spend more on clothing, shoes, radios, videos and electrical goods. There is high import penetration in all those markets. I hope that we shall have more tax, cuts in the Budget, but we must be cautious that when people have more money in their pockets they do not buy more imported goods.
I am delighted that a committee has been formed, with financial backing from 10 supporting organisations, to promote a "Think British" campaign. The committee will also advise manufacturers about the best goods to produce, investigate allegations that goods claimed to be British in effect have a high foreign content, and investigate dumping.
The average household in this country spends £96 a week, and 25 per cent. of that is spent on imported goods. The Economist Intelligence Unit has stated that if every family reduced its spending on imported goods by £3 a week, the balance of payments figures would improve by £900 million and 360,000 more jobs would be created in two years. If every family cut its spending on imports by £6 a week, nearly 750,000 jobs would be created.
The first firm to use the "Think British" label will be British Leyland. I understand that it is starting to use that label immediately. I was delighted to hear that the second


firm will be Tube Investments, which will use the label on its cookers. I am particularly delighted because my constituency contains two successful Tube Investments factories—Parkray and Glowworm. Tube Investments has other factories throughout the east midlands. Debenhams, which is one of three supporting retail organisations—the others are Marks and Spencer and the House of Fraser—has taken advice from the committee. Because of this it has stated that it will cut its imports of Italian tights. I am grateful for that. In my constituency there is a factory which produces 50 per cent. of the ladies tights manufactured in this country. Other tights are produced throughout the east midlands.
The factory has increased its competitiveness, made economies and improved its products. All the factories have done so. I am glad that Debenhams has recognised that. It will not in future be importing so many tights from Italy, which is valuable since the penetration over the past few years has been growing serious and I hope other firms will take note. It is to their advantage to cut down on imported goods. If Debenhams had continued in its policy of importing Italian tights, it may well have succeeded in closing a factory in the east midlands. That would have affected its own business as the people who work in the factory are its potential customers.
The committee that is promoting the "Think British" campaign is to be commended. It is composed of 36 people, 26 of whom are women. They are responding to the new patriotic spirit that has been much in evidence since the Falklands campaign. I have no doubt that they will succeed in promoting the idea that people must in future concentrate on buying more British goods and to think British. With that spirit and with the moderation and flexibility of the east midlands, the east midlands will soon lead the country out of the recession just as this country will lead the world out of the recession.

Mr. Jim Marshall: The speech of the hon. Member for Belper (Mrs. Faith) sums up the complacency on the Government Benches about unemployment, particularly in the east midlands and more generally throughout the United Kingdom. The hon. Lady said that she represents a constituency with a very moderate work force that does not go in for divisive strikes and is moderate in pay claims. If the work force is as good as she says it is—I accept that it is—why is unemployment in Belper and in other parts of the east midlands continuing to rise?

Mrs. Faith: I am sorry if I did not make clear that, while unemployment in my constituency is much higher than I would like, it is very much lower than it is in the rest of Derbyshire, lower than in most parts of the east midlands and in the rest of the country.

Mr. Marshall: I am grateful for that amplification. That does not answer the point that unemployment is increasing and will continue to increase.
The hon. Lady mentioned the "Think British" campaign. I am sure that most people in this country think British throughout their working hours. That does not mean that when they go shopping they will buy British goods. There is no point in having a slogan "Think British" unless people buy British goods. The only way to do that

in the present economic climate is to put restraints on imports so that conditions are created whereby British firms can increase their output to meet the increased demand.
The Minister of State made one of the worst opening speeches I have heard from the Dispatch Box since May 1979. To dismiss an increase of over two million in the number of people unemployed since 1979 in the way he did highlights his benighted attitude to the misery that many tens of thousands of families are suffering. The Government cannot much longer hide from the fact that they are using unemployment as an economic weapon. They are seeking to undermine the morale of the work force and to diminish the importance of the trade unions as institutions. The Government want a compliant work force that is less forceful in wage negotiations and wage bargaining, and to undermine the working class institutions that have developed in this country in the past 100 years.
Having got those few points off my chest, I come to the more parochial matter of my constituency in the city of Leicester. Some hon. and right hon. Members may have seen a television programme on Monday this week which highlighted Leicester. It referred to Leicester in the 1930s as being one of the most prosperous cities, if not the most prosperous city, in Europe. That is no longer the case. Figures from the Department of Employment show that unemployment in the Leicester travel-to-work area is 11·4 per cent. That is slightly below the national average. What that figure conceals is the actual unemployment within the city of Leicester. Included in the Leicester travel-to-work area are parts of the constituencies of Harborough, Melton, Blaby, and Loughborough.
Many middle class surburban areas that surround the city of Leicester come within the Leicester travel-to-work area. Making an adjustment for that, the actual unemployment rate within the city of Leicester is 15 or 16 per cent. That is above the national average. That crude figure hides unemployment rates in various parts of the city. A survey has shown that in the inner city area and on outer estates unemployment has risen to 40 or 50 per cent.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is my hon. Friend aware that in parts of my constituency, especially in the estates in Braunstone, it is estimated that unemployment is well over 50 per cent? Part of the tragedy is that much of this unemployment is long term and youth unemployment. The situation is getting worse day by day. The morale of management and the work force in the Leicester area is deteriorating and there is no feeling that the Government are prepared to do anything to pull them out of this tragic situation.

Mr. Marshall: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. He is correct when he says that many people in their late middle age in the city of Leicester see no prospect of further work until they retire. Many young people, particularly school leavers, have a feeling of hopelessness and believe that no one really cares. I find most frightening the fact that growing up in this country is a generation of people who feel that society does not care for them at all. We are building up social problems for the future. We know of apprentices reaching the end of their time and being told that there is no job for them—for instance, at Jones and Shipman. My daughter's boy friend works for GEC. He has been told that when he completes his


apprenticeship in March he will not have a job. He will be shown the gate. That is symptomatic of what is happening to many apprentices.
A by-product of the change in employment protection legislation is that many young people are dismissed just before the 12-month period is up when they come under the umbrella of that legislation. That undermines morale, especially of young people.
Not a week goes by in Leicester without a steady drip of lost jobs. Mention has been made of the situation in the hosiery, knitwear, footwear and light engineering industries. Week by week, the local press in Leicester reports more and more lost jobs. That is not due to trade union militancy. In that respect, Leicester is like Belper. Nor is it due to exorbitant pay claims. On the contrary, the trade union movement in Leicester is the epitome of moderation, but jobs are still being lost. It is not the fault of the people of Leicester, who are industrious and inventive. It is the fault of the Government and their economic policies. High interest rates have ruined many businesses, both large and small, and high exchange rates have encouraged imports and discouraged exports. That means that Leicester jobs have been exported overseas.

Mr. Michael Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Marshall: No. It is indicative of the hon. Gentleman's attitude that he should come into the debate late instead of being here to discuss the difficulties now faced by the steel workers in Scunthorpe.
It is the fault of the Government, whose economic policies are creating a wasteland in Leicester. That is spreading throughout the east midlands and the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. John Farr: I recognise the importance of the debate, but the House should not be misled by the motion. The level of unemployment is bad, and is something that we all deplore, but the number of people who have kept jobs since 1979 is not nearly as bad as the motion suggests.
In 1979, 1,532,000 people were at work in the east midlands. In June 1982, the latest figures that I could obtain, the number was 1,409,000—a decrease of 8 per cent. over a three-year period. To retain 92 people out of 100 at work in the east midlands during the middle of a world recession has been a formidable achievement which would have been beyond a Labour Government.
Gross domestic product shows that by no means is all lost in the east midlands—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) appears to find these figures amusing, but I am quoting from the official "Economic Trends" for November 1982. No doubt the hon. Gentleman studied these figures and is familiar with them. Those figures show that GDP in the east midlands increased from about £10,700,000 to £13,700,000. In the same two-year period, GDP increased nationally by 20 per cent., from £169 million to £212 million. In real terms, taking the value of a stable pound and inflation into account, there has been hardly any decline in GDP, either in Britain or the east midlands.
The small decline that has taken place over those two years—about 2 per cent. a year—is more than matched by the decline in the permanent work force. That shows that

there has been a substantial and noticeable increase in productivity, not only throughout the United Kingdom but in particular in the east midlands region.
The economic trends document also shows gross domestic product by industry groups, and in the east midlands there are about 10 types of productive work, including agriculture, mining, manufacturing, and construction. In no fewer than eight out of 10, the east midlands has increased its percentage of GDP. For example, in 1979, the east midlands area accounted for 7·6 per cent. of GDP in manufactured goods. In 1981, that had increased to 8·1 per cent. Even more marked increases are apparent. In gas, electricity and water, the proportion of GDP enjoyed by the east midlands went up from 6·9 per cent. in 1979 to 7·1 per cent in 1981. Those figures show that in many respects the east midlands has increased its proportion of GDP.

Mr. Greville Janner: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that those figures are no consolation whatever to the thousands of unemployed people in the city of Leicester who see no prospect of any Government action?

Mr. Farr: I am sorry that I gave way, because that was not a constructive intervention. Domestic matters in Leicester and Leicestershire concern us all, as do the problems of the east midlands. However, the problem that we are now discussing is not merely an east midlands or a national problem. It is a world problem, and, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State emphasised, the growth of unemployment in West Germany has been greater than that of Great Britain. That is no consolation for us, and as east midland Members we must do what we can to put the matter right.
I despair of Labour Members who allege that this or that industry has been crucified by Government policy. Much of the decline in east midlands competitiveness has happened over a period when different Governments have been in office. An example in the footwear industry ought to worry all hon. Members. In the Leicester and Mansfield areas of the footwear industry, between 1976 and 1982, the number of factories declined by about one third. The work force declined by about half. What is sad is that total output declined by half as well. In other words, the whole footwear industry in our part of the world—Leicester, Mansfield, mainly the east midlands—is half as important as it was in 1976. No one can crucify any Government for that. We should be adult enough in this House to look at the problem together, and we should say it is not the fault of the Conservative Government, it was not the fault of the Labour Government, it might have been management or workers or both, or it might be foreign imports. But to say that one industry or another has been crucified by any Government is to exaggerate the facts.
I do not see the situation as all black in the east midlands. My hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) mentioned the prospect of new mines. In the agriculture industry in 1982 output in the east midlands exceeded all records. We still have a strong base in manufactured goods such as tobacco and engineering, both heavy and light, and that is now much fitter and will be better able to compete in the future.
I want to mention two issues in conclusion. The first is enterprise zones. I hope that the Minister will make sure that his right hon. Friend gets the message. In the east midlands we have one enterprise zone, at Corby.

Mr. Latham: There is another one.

Mr. Farr: My hon. Friend is right. We have two. However, it is not altogether satisfactory for towns with existing industries, to which the new enterprise zone often acts as a magnet, attracting existing long-established businesses from those towns to the enterprise zone. Of course, an enterprise zone should be successful, and the Government want to promote such zones, but it was not the intention of the Act of Parliament that established them that new business should go there from old-established sites in the surrounding towns where people have worked for generations.
Rates are probably one of the biggest millstones around the neck of industry at present. There are firms in my constituency that pay nearly £100,000 per annum in rates. They say to me "We do not mind spending that money, but can't we have some say in how it is spent?" I hope that the Minister will tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, when he returns, that when the Secretary of State for the Environment gets round to deciding on the recommendations in the Green Paper he will take steps to relieve the two parts of society that have been hard hit by rates—the single or elderly householder living alone, and industry, which has no voice in how rates are spent, but which in many parts of the country is being brought to its knees by high local government demands.
I believe that the opportunities are there for exporters in the east midlands. The pound is as low as it ever has been, and there are markets to be won abroad.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should like to thank the House and those hon. Members who have taken part in the debate for the brevity of their speeches and for heeding my pleas. I understand that the Front Bench spokesman wishes to rise just before 6.45 pm. If those hon. Members who remain in the Chamber will speak for five minutes each, I shall be able to call them all.

Mr. Bill Homewood: It is a coincidence that I follow the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), because he happens to be my Member of Parliament. I live in Market Harborough. He gave statistics. However, I was more impressed by the statistics that came from the Government Front Bench than by any of the others that I heard. I did not have the opportunity to go to grammar school, and I had not realised until today that doubling one per cent. makes two, and that it does not mean that unemployment has increased very much under this Government. In fact, although unemployment doubled under the Labour Government—it went from one per cent. to two per cent.—under this Government in my constituency it has gone up by 250 per cent. in Corby and 200 per cent. in Kettering. Although I live in Market Harborough, I have not checked the hon. Gentleman's statistics, but I imagine that the increase there will be of about the same size.
I remember three years ago when we heard about the closure of the iron and steelworks. I stood here in almost the same position, talking to the then Secretary of State for Industry, and criticising the sharp increase in unemployment. The Secretary of State said to me, in an intervention, "The hon. Gentleman talks as though those people will never go to work again". I shall not comment on that, but when the present Secretary of State for Industry goes to

Corby on Friday I hope that he will see the hundreds of millions of pounds that have had to be spent on Corby to save what was then a loss of £10 million per year in the steel industry. He will find industries are coming to Corby and then leaving it almost overnight. He will find that the assisted area status and the enterprise zone, of which the hon. Member for Harborough spoke, are being used in many cases as a liquidator's paradise, and that unemployment in Corby remains the same as it was at the time of the closures—21·9 per cent. general unemployment and 24·9 per cent. males out of work. That means that in the immediate Corby area at least 30 per cent. of males must be out of work.
When the Secretary of State for Industry looks round the town on Friday, he will see that millions of pounds have been spent trying to replace what the Government did when they closed the iron and steelworks. They did so on the excuse that energy costs were rising so rapidly that it would be uneconomic to keep them going. Now energy prices are going in the other direction, but all the Government are doing is to pay out social security to about 25 per cent. of the population. The Government closed the iron and steelworks, and there is nothing to replace it, except the assisted area status and the enterprise zone, which are costing them a hell of a lot of money. That may sound a retrogressive argument in the context of what is needed, but there is a feeling of hopelessness among the people of Corby. They cannot drag themselves out of that hopelessness, no matter what the Government do. Despite the immense expenditure, the people in Corby are running like the devil to stay on the same spot. All the money that is being spent on the Corby promotion is being wasted by the general economic policies of this Government. Firms open and then close because of the recession.
I want to clear up one point about the theme park that the Minister mentioned. The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) seemed to think that I was scoffing at the idea of the theme park coming to Corby. Nothing of the kind. Nothing is closer to my heart than the theme park in Corby. I was surprised that the Minister mentioned it because we have been waiting for weeks now for planning permission to be accepted by the Secretary of State for the Environment. The people who are promoting it need that to get it off the ground. The plan is for work on the theme park to start in May, yet here we are in the middle of February with planning permission stuck in the Department of the Environment and the Minister has the cheek to say that it could be Corby's salvation.
I have much to do with the boot and shoe industry in Kettering. I wrote to the director general of the boot and shoe industry's employers' association almost immediately after the summer recess asking him to meet me to discuss the industry's problems. His reply pretty much said "I am sorry, Bill, but the only thing that I can talk to you about is the high level of the pound."—as if the salvation of the boot and shoe industry depended on that. It amuses me that then when Labour Members say that value of the pound should be reduced there is immediately an upsurge among Conservative Members, who say that we are being unpatriotric, yet here is an employers' representative saying exactly the same. Indeed, the CBI would be saying exactly the same except that it is far more concerned to keep the Government in power than it is to keep its members in business.
My constituency in the east midlands needs a complete change in Government policy on industry, the devaluation of the pound and import controls.

Mr. Richard Alexander: We have heard in this debate and elsewhere that the problems of the east midlands are entirely the responsibility of the Government and, in particular, of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. That is grossly unfair. It is not even a half truth. We must look at the reasons for unemployment and not just say that because the Government are in power they must take entire responsibility for it. Unemployment has soared to record levels in almost all other western countries. I need not dwell further on that.
When my hon. Friend the Minister replies, he will rightly point out the contributions that small businesses can and do make to the region's recovery and to the considerable package of aids that he has introduced over the past year or so—96 at the last count. He will rightly point out, too, I hope, that more businesses start every year than fail. Yet behind the statistics there is some unease. Perhaps we have done enough for the time being by way of schemes to start new businesses and should now concentrate a little more on trying to keep businesses, often of long standing, alive.
The Department's expertise has found 96 schemes for new businesses. Can it now turn its attention to helping those existing businesses which are struggling to remain alive? They are often at the mercy of forces that they cannot control. I am obliged to say that we have taken a feeble line over the continuing existence of wages councils. They are throttling small businesses today which are having to pay wages considerably higher than the employer is taking out of the business. It is cruel, crazy and shortsighted to continue in that way. Staff are given holidays much longer than employers are able to take and employers are having to pay young people wages which are higher than is justified—almost the rates for skilled and long-serving employees.
The abolition of wages councils would do more good for businesses and continuing youth employment than all the 96 schemes put together. I do not denigrate those schemes, but there is nothing intrinsically magic or right about wages councils. We have them in some industries and not in others.
Many businesses today look with great doubt upon the rates that they will have to pay at the current rates round. They wonder whether they will be able to survive the likely rate demand. I see the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) in his place. On Monday the Nottinghamshire county council will announce the levy of a rate precept of 139p—an increase of 13·5p, which is, for non-domestic ratepayers, an increase of 9·7 per cent. I sometimes wonder whether Socialist-controlled councils which profess social concern really care in the slightest about the effect that swingeing rate increases have on businesses and unemployment.
The Nottinghamshire chamber of commerce has told the Nottinghamshire county council time and again that the swingeing increases in rates since the Socialists came to power have squeezed their margins of profitability to such an extent that they can no longer consider further expansion or, what is more important, taking on more labour, but the county council does not seem to care. Apart

from taking on more and more employees, it seems to enable it to criticise the Government and pass pious resolutions about the rate of unemployment in the county.
My plea is twofold. In order to get Governments off the backs of those who are doing the job, we must remove all Socialist control from county councils in particular and the Government should have a more robust attitude towards the support of existing businesses. That way lies fuller employment and prosperity for the east midlands.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I want to stress what has happened in Derby and Derbyshire in the course of the recession and tell the Secretary of State for Employment and his hon. Friend the Minister of State that the "Alice in Wonderworld" approach is not goof enough in terms of the human misery and suffering that we are now seeing.
Unemployment in Derby now stands at 11 per cent.; it is 11·8 per cent. in Derbyshire, 12·5 per cent. in the east midlands and 13·7 per cent. nationally. Why should I raise the problems of Derby in particular? The answer is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, Derby has traditionally been a honeypot for people coming into the region. In the 1930s, 1950s and 1960s they came with every pattern of accent and varieties of skill from the nation as a whole. We were at the absolute cutting edge of British technology with the industries of Derby. Those industries have been decimated by the policies of this Government and that is the special tragedy of what has occurred in the region.
The job losses include 5,000 lost at Rolls-Royce, 15 per cent. of the work force at Aitons, the Courtaulds work force down by nearly half since 1979, British Rail Engineering trying to find more redundancies, over and above the 1,000 who have left the work force in three years, and firms such as Fletcher and Stewart and Dupar Pelapone going bankrupt. Ley's Malleable Castings in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Johnson) announced last week that 380 jobs were going. That is what is happening in Derby at the moment.
The verdict on this position—and it is one I would quote to Ministers in the debate—coming from those who would naturally support the Government is that their regional industrial policy is a failure. This comes from the Association of District Councils, Conservative-controlled. The CBI report on the east midlands economy describes it as
stagnant with weak demand, liquidity problems and short-time working.
The Derby and Derbyshire chamber of commerce, again hardly supporters of my party, has said that
industrial investment in Derbyshire is continuing to fall, and prospects look as grim as ever,
according to the latest survey this month. The Government should realise that it is their monetarist policies that have depressed demand, destroyed business confidence and devastated the whole of our region.
We believe there are alternative policies and we have a right to put them forward in this debate. We have a right, for example, to say what we think about British Rail, now groaning under the impact of the ludicrous Serpell report, which the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) said was now a dead letter. I did not see him voting against it the other day. We have British Rail Engineering looking


at the problems of investment. We see how British Rail has been consistently starved of investment by this Government over the past few years; we see the petulance of the Prime Minister sabotaging the channel tunnel project; we hear Sir Peter Parker, the chairman of British Rail, saying only yesterday that it will have to buy America diesel locomotives if electrification is further delayed. Locomotives should be being built in this country, with the skills of the craftesmen who live in my constituency and in the city of Derby, but they are not building them because of the policies of the Government.
We believe in the injection of public investment to benefit both public and private sectors. We think new hospitals benefit both the community and the jobbing builder. New school books benefit both the child and the private printer. Rail electrification could benefit the traveller, the railwayman and the private contractor alike. We want to link those policies with a competitive exchange rate and with controls on the cynical export of capital, which people in my constituency and elsewhere in the east midlands know perfectly well is at the root of their present discontent.
The cynical view is that people can be sold this particular pup. They can be told that it is all the fault of the world recession. They can be told that we are really no worse off—although we are—than all the other OECD countries, that our GDP has not fallen more than that of the others. The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) is wrong to say that it has not: in real terms it has fallen by over 5 per cent. under this Government.
I do not believe that people can be persuaded of those untruths. I do not believe people can be bought off with tabloid trash and told to take their redundancy money down to the pub or to bingo, or to switch on the video and turn away from the realities of the world today. I believe the Falklands victory will count for less than the industrial defeat when we meet the electorate at the time of the next election. I do not believe we can live with mass unemployment, however often leader writers on The Times, who do not seem to cope with it very much themselves, tell us that we have to do so.
I am prepared to meet my electors in Derbyshire—as the hon. Member for Belper (Mrs. Faith) and others are not, since they are leaving to look for greener pastures in the south—and tell them that there is an alternative. I detect in the suburbs and closes of my constituency, in the affluent part of Derby just as much as in the terraced houses of Bolsover, a deep and burning anger at what is now going on.
I end with lines from a poem about men of a different kind of new religion, not monetarism, some time ago. It is a lesson we should put to this Government today.
Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget. For we are the people of England, that never have spoken yet.
The people of England will speak, and very shortly.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: I have waited to speak until the end of the debate because, at the beginning, I was meeting representatives of one of my county councils, the Lincolnshire county council. I thought it important to meet them. One of the reasons why unemployment is marginally lower in that part than in the other part of the east midlands that I represent is that the

county council has kept the rates down for two years running. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) that Socialist councils, in pushing up rates, are destroying jobs in industry, and the sooner they recognise that fact, the better.
The east midlands has hitherto always escaped the kind of recession that we have at the moment. It is even now being affected slightly less than other parts of the country. The TUC's own document accepts that unemployment is less in this region. That is good for the east midlands because it means that the people there are resilient. There are many small industries and self-employed people. If we could get that kind of activity going in other parts of the country, it would have a significant effect on unemployment.
Listening to Labour Members, one would imagine that they did not think there was a world recession. Everything is blamed on the Government, on the Prime Minister or on the Department of Employment. People do not believe it, and I have never heard such nonsense in my life. The Labour party knows very well that two thirds or more of unemployment has been caused by the kind of world recession which is affecting the whole of Europe and part of the Communist world as well. The rest has been caused because over the years we have failed to put our industrial house in order. At least the present Government are trying to remedy that.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: I shall try to sum up this debate as quickly as possible because it is to be followed by a similar one on the northern region and I want to show my good friends from that region that I recognise that they are in a worse plight than, on average, are people in the east midlands.
I was not present to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) open the debate—he knows full well that I was employed elsewhere on behalf of the east midlands and its industry—but from the comments I have heard I am aware that he has made a good start at the Dispatch Box and I look forward to working in tandem with him at the Dispatch Box on many future occasions.
The main indictment against the Government is that we are having to use an Opposition day to discuss unemployment in the east midlands. I never thought I would see such a day. The east midlands has been called "the golden triangle". When I first came to this House we counted unemployment in my area in tens, and certainly not more than a couple of hundred. Industrialists were always looking for more labour. People were coming on their bicycles into my constituency as late as 1979; whole villages from the surrounding countryside were coming into my constituency.
What do I find after a few short years? Unemployment in the east midlands, as anywhere else, is no longer counted in hundreds. In Mansfield the Government have done the impossible: they have shoved the unemployment rate above the national average. It would have taken an absolutely idiotic Government or one of great genius to do it in an area like Mansfield. It cannot be blamed on the world recession when an area as vital to this nation as the east midlands is blighted and we have to devote Opposition time to discussing the subject.
I would like to take up some points raised during the debate, although I cannot deal with all of them. My hon. Friends have already spoken about the textile, boot and


shoe, steel and coal mining industries. Furthermore, we need a decision on the Vale of Belvoir very quickly. There is a smell of a political decision, and I know what political decisions mean. I know full well that the decision on the Vale of Belvoir will be taken in the week after the general election, whichever party wins it. I also know that no one will upset the people in the area before the election, especially the Government. Therefore, I do not expect a decision on Belvoir. The miners in Leicestershire and south Nottinghamshire know full well that that coalfield is vital for their jobs and for the country.
The Government have a lot to answer for in the east midlands. Some of the speeches made today by Conservative Members have been full of crocodile tears. I only hope that those hon. Members have the guts to show their constituents that for once they will vote as they have spoken. I shall certainly go, with some glee, into the Lobby against the Government and what they have done in butchering the east midlands.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John MacGregor): At the Opposition's request, and to allow a number of hon. Members to speak in the debate. I promised to keep my speech short. Therefore, like the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), I shall not be able to respond to all the points that have been made.
Unemployment is a terrible and tragic waste of human and economic resources, and that is common ground on both sides of the House. However, we shall not find solutions unless we accurately diagnose its cause. It is worth repeating one figure, although it is not an east midlands but a national figure. The increase in unit costs in Britain between 1975 and 1980 was 89 per cent. compared with 37 per cent. in the United States of America, 17 per cent. in West Germany and 0 per cent. in Japan. The number of jobs and firms lost can be attributed far more to that than to anything else, including the world recession. There cannot be any doubt about that—[Interruption.] If Labour Members keep interrupting me, I shall be unable to finish my speech in time for the next debate. That lost competitiveness between 1975 and 1980 and the current world recession are linked. As a result of our loss of competitiveness, we were less able to face the blitz of the world recession than the more successful nations.
Another background factor concerns technology and the second industrial revolution. In the past, this country has been very slow to get on to the race track, let alone into the race. This morning, the British Robot Association produced figures showing that in 1978 there were only 125 robots in Britain. Happily, there were last year 1,152. That shows an improvement in the way in which we are trying to keep up to date with modern technology, but we still have a long way to go if we are to catch up with our more successful competitors. The Government have encouraged that improvement in our second industrial revolution.
Those are among the most important causes of the current unemployment. It is interesting to note that Opposition Members did not mention them once, with the exception of brief comments on the world recession. In this debate, and in our many other similar debates, I have listened carefully to the Opposition. I do not say that they shed crocodile tears, because I accept that they are deeply concerned about the levels of unemployment and the

situation facing many of their constituents. However, I was struck by how little they said about what could be done to deal with the problem.
Today, we have had two answers. Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes)—whom I congratulate on his appearance on the Front Bench—suggested, yet again, more reflation and more and more public spending.

Mr. Whitehead: Any increase in public spending.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman, should recollect that there has been a substantial increase in real terms in capital investment in the nationalised industries this year. However, it was a Labour Prime Minister who said that we could not spend our way out of a recession, except by creating much higher inflation once again. It is worth repeating that, in the Labour party's recent programme for recovery, it accepted, in the second simulation, that there would be no incomes restraint—the more realistic among them know that it will not be possible for them to achieve that by their policies—and the result would be that by 1986 inflation would stand at 18 per cent. That would be the biggest possible recipe for more job losses and there would be a balance of payments deficit of £25 billion. That is said in the Labour party's programme.
That is no way to create permanent jobs and it is certainly not what the CBI or industry wants—[Interruption.] I talk to many of those in industry, and I think that my hon. Friends have got it right. The CBI and industry want industrial costs to be tackled and they want to continue their increased competitiveness. The CBI budget representations are headlined "Costs are crucial." There is a call not for a massive programme of high Government expenditure, but for a continuation of the policies that we have been pursuing in keeping down interest rates and tackling the national insurance surcharge and so on.
The second prescription came from the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), who said that we could make people buy British only by imposing all-round import restrictions. What a defeatist attitude! It would be disastrous for the United Kingdom's economy. The hon. Gentleman should recall that we still depend for our standard of living on exporting one third of all that we produce. He should recognise that if we impose such an artificial form of control and constraint there will be a further loss of competitiveness among our home industries.
The most interesting point is that that diagnosis does not get to the root of the problem, which is that it is what customers buy that is important. The hon. Gentleman wished to force customers to buy British by preventing them from buying their goods elsewhere. Firms are increasingly getting back into the competitive race, because they are producing with modern technology the goods at a price that customers both at home and abroad want.
I was struck by the fact that the contributions made by my hon. Friends were quite different and that many of them made constructive suggestions, which I wish I had time to deal with. Several hon. Members pointed out that, in general, unemployment in the east midlands is below the national average. Those hon. Members who intend to speak in the next debate will agree that assisted area policy should be concentrated on the areas of greatest need.
The areas of highest unemployment in the east midlands have nevertheless been singled out for assisted area treatment. Corby is the only development area, but three areas have intermediate status. Equally, many parts have been designated as derelict land clearance areas and so receive the grants and benefits available. The area is certainly not suffering as much as some other parts of the country are from the problems engendered by the declining heavy industries. However, more than £90 million of Government aid has been spent in the east midlands since May 1979 either through Department of Industry programmes or through the urban programme.
My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the employment measures. The hon. Member for Ashfield mentioned small firms. The latest year for which figures are available is 1981. At that time there were 900 more births than deaths in the east midlands. That should be borne in mind at a time when everyone is concentrating on the failures. In addition, it is important for my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) to recognise that, of the 98 measures, only a handful are concentrated on the new businesses. The vast majority are directed at existing businesses. I hope that my hon. Friend will help me to get that message across, because it is important that existing firms should realise that. I wish that I had more time to spend on small firms, because many exciting and constructive things are going on in the east midlands. Indeed, I have seen some of them.
I hope that those hon. Members who raised questions about the footwear and textile industries will forgive me if I refer to them only briefly; they have been debated frequently in the House. Two points should be stressed. First, both industries benefit—through the MFA in the case of textiles—from the greatest range of protections available to any industry in Britain. Secondly, I believe that it was the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) who mentioned EC grant aids. The Government have devoted a good deal of effort to impressing on the European Commission our serious concern about the growth of state aid for the textile and clothing industries within the Community. Our persistence has undoubtedly caused the Commission to toughen its appraisal of new schemes and to subject any approvals to rigorous conditions. I wish that I had more time to deal specifically with the problems of the east midlands.
I must now deal with the more general scene because that, at the end of the day, is what matters most to the east midlands, as it does to other areas in Britain. What they need is success, and that will take time. We always said that it would. It is inevitable in a world recession. We need the Government's continuing economic policies. We have tackled the underlying and long-standing problems and have succeeded in reducing inflation and industrial costs—including interest rates. We have succeeded in our realistic capital expenditure programmes within our resources.
One hon. Member mentioned British Rail. The most important point about British Rail is that if only what is happening on the St. Pancras to Bedford line, for example, did not occur, it would be easier to see where constructive investment should take place. The success of the Government's policies is the way ahead.
I say quite frankly that we shall continue to face a difficult and challenging climate in the present world

conditions. The electorate recognises the hollowness of the Opposition's attacks and the emptiness of their policies. That was shown both in this debate and in their standing in the opinion polls. The electorate recognises that we would face total economic disaster if the Opposition's economic policies were applied. That is why we have no hesitation in rejecting the Opposition's motion tonight.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 249, Noes 303.

Division No. 62]
[7.1 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)


Adams, Allen
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Allaun, Frank
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Alton, David
English, Michael


Anderson, Donald
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Evans, John (Newton)


Ashton, Joe
Faulds, Andrew


Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)
Field, Frank


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fitch, Alan


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fitt, Gerard


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Flannery, Martin


Beith, A. J.
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Ford, Ben


Bidwell, Sydney
Forrester, John


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Foster, Derek


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Bottomley, Rt Hon A. (M'b'ro)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Bradley, Tom
Freud, Clement


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
George, Bruce


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Golding, John


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Gourlay, Harry


Buchan, Norman
Graham, Ted


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Grant, John (Islington C)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Campbell, Ian
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hardy, Peter


Cant, R. B.
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Carmichael, Neil
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cartwright, John
Haynes, Frank


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Clarke, Thomas (C'b'dge, A'rie)
Heffer, Eric S.


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Cohen, Stanley
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Coleman, Donald
Home Robertson, John


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Homewood, William


Conlan, Bernard
Horam, John


Cook, Robin F.
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Cowans, Harry
Howells, Geraint


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Hoyle, Douglas


Crowther, Stan
Huckfield, Les


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Janner, Hon Greville


Dalyell, Tam
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Davidson, Arthur
John, Brynmor


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Deakins, Eric
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Dewar, Donald
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dixon, Donald
Lambie, David


Dobson, Frank
Lamond, James


Dormand, Jack
Leadbitter, Ted


Douglas, Dick
Leighton, Ronald


Dubs, Alfred
Lestor, Miss Joan


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Dunnett, Jack
Litherland, Robert


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Eadie, Alex
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Eastham, Ken
McDonald, Dr Oonagh






McElhone, Mrs Helen
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Rowlands, Ted


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Ryman, John


McKelvey, William
Sandelson, Neville


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Sever, John


McMahon, Andrew
Sheerman, Barry


McNally, Thomas
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


McNamara, Kevin
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McTaggart, Robert
Short, Mrs Renée


McWilliam, John
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Marks, Kenneth
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)
Silverman, Julius


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)
Snape, Peter


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Soley, Clive


Maxton, John
Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Spriggs, Leslie


Meacher, Michael
Stallard, A. W.


Mikardo, Ian
Steel, Rt Hon David


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Stoddart, David


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Stott, Roger


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Strang, Gavin


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Straw, Jack


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Newens, Stanley
Tilley, John


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Tinn, James


Ogden, Eric
Torney, Tom


O'Halloran, Michael
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


O'Neill, Martin
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wainwright, R. (Colne V)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)


Palmer, Arthur
Wardell, Gareth


Park, George
Watkins, David


Parker, John
Weetch, Ken


Parry, Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Pavitt, Laurie
Welsh, Michael


Pendry, Tom
White, Frank R.


Pitt, William Henry
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Whitehead, Phillip


Prescott, John
Whitlock, William


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Wigley, Dafydd


Race, Reg
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Radice, Giles
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)


Richardson, Jo
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Winnick, David


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Woodall, Alec


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wright, Sheila


Robertson, George
Young, David (Bolton E)


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)



Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rooker, J. W.
Mr. George Morton and


Roper, John
Mr. Hugh McCartney.


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)



NOES


Adley, Robert
Bevan, David Gilroy


Aitken, Jonathan
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Alexander, Richard
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Blackburn, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Body, Richard


Ancram, Michael
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Arnold, Tom
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Aspinwall, Jack
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)
Bowden, Andrew


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Braine, Sir Bernard


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bright, Graham


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Brinton, Tim


Bendall, Vivian
Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Brooke, Hon Peter


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Brotherton, Michael


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)


Best, Keith
Browne, John (Winchester)





Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hastings, Stephen


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hawkins, Sir Paul


Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.
Hawksley, Warren


Buck, Antony
Hayhoe, Barney


Budgen, Nick
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Bulmer, Esmond
Heddle, John


Burden, Sir Frederick
Henderson, Barry


Butcher, John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Butler, Hon Adam
Hicks, Robert


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hill, James


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hooson, Tom


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Hordern, Peter


Chapman, Sydney
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Churchill, W. S.
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Clegg, Sir Walter
Irvine, Rt Hon Bryant Godman


Colvin, Michael
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Cope, John
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Corrie, John
Jessel, Toby


Costain, Sir Albert
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cranborne, Viscount
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Critchley, Julian
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Crouch, David
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kimball, Sir Marcus


Dorrell, Stephen
King, Rt Hon Tom


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Dover, Denshore
Knight, Mrs Jill


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Knox, David


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lamont, Norman


Durant, Tony
Lang, Ian


Dykes, Hugh
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Latham, Michael


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lawrence, Ivan


Eggar, Tim
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Elliott, Sir William
Lee, John


Emery, Sir Peter
Le Marchant, Spencer


Eyre, Reginald
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Farr, John
Loveridge, John


Fell, Sir Anthony
Luce, Richard


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lyell, Nicholas


Finsberg, Geoffrey
McCrindle, Robert


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Macfarlane, Neil


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
MacGregor, John


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Forman, Nigel
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Fox, Marcus
McQuarrie, Albert


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Major, John


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Marland, Paul


Fry, Peter
Marlow, Antony


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gardner, Sir Edward
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mates, Michael


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mawby, Ray


Goodlad, Alastair
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gorst, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gow, Ian
Mayhew, Patrick


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mellor, David


Grant, Sir Anthony
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gray, Rt Hon Hamish
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Greenway, Harry
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Grieve, Percy
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Miscampbell, Norman


Grist, Ian
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Grylls, Michael
Moate, Roger


Gummer, John Selwyn
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Hon A.
Montgomery, Fergus


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Moore, John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Hannam, John
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Haselhurst, Alan
Mudd, David






Murphy, Christopher
Spence, John


Myles, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Neale, Gerrard
Sproat, Iain


Needham, Richard
Squire, Robin


Nelson, Anthony
Stainton, Keith


Neubert, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Normanton, Tom
Stanley, John


Nott, Rt Hon Sir John
Steen, Anthony


Onslow, Cranley
Stevens, Martin


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Stokes, John


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Stradling Thomas, J.


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Tapsell, Peter


Patten, John (Oxford)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Pawsey, James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Percival, Sir Ian
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Donald


Pink, R. Bonner
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Pollock, Alexander
Thornton, Malcolm


Porter, Barry
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Trippier, David


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Trotter, Neville


Prior, Rt Hon James
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Proctor, K. Harvey
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Viggers, Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Waddington, David


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wakeham, John


Renton, Tim
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rhodes James, Robert
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walker, B. (Perth)


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wall, Sir Patrick


Rifkind, Malcolm
Waller, Gary


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Walters, Dennis


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Ward, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Warren, Kenneth


Rossi, Hugh
Watson, John


Rost, Peter
Wells, Bowen


Royle, Sir Anthony
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Wheeler, John


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Whitney, Raymond


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wickenden, Keith


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wilkinson, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Shepherd, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas


Shersby, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Silvester, Fred
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sims, Roger
Younger, Rt Hon George


Skeet, T. H. H.



Smith, Dudley
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Speed, Keith
Mr. Carol Mather.


Speller, Tony

Question accordingly negatived.

Unemployment (Northern Region)

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the appalling unemployment in the Northern Region largely created by the iniquity of Conservative Government policies, which have created within the region the highest unemployment rate in mainland Britain and the virtual disappearance of vacancies; recognises that the Northern Region is in imminent danger of becoming an industrial desert by the continued destruction of shipbuilding, heavy engineering, manufacturing and service industries; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to take urgent and immediate action to regenerate the Northern Region.
The economy of the northern region has been dependent on manufacturing industry for all too long. The decline in manufacturing industry has been severe in the past few years. Jobs have gone on a massive scale in industries which, sadly, will never return. Coal mines, steelworks and shipyards once closed will never reopen. In addition, the public expenditure so badly needed has been severely cut back. The Government have been guilty of moving towards industry specific rather than region specific, resulting in a marked fall of 40 per cent. in regional assistance such as regional development grants.
Alongside the slashing of direct regional aid there has been an increase in aid to the motor industry and to the science and technological industries, which has not helped the northern region. The Government's stress on small firms has, because we have all too few small firms, been of much greater benefit to other regions than it has been to ours. The south-east, for instance, has received 40·3 per cent. of the loan guarantees for small firms, compared with only 2·7 per cent. for the northern region. Fair shares for all would have given us 7·1 per cent., not 2·7 per cent.
Regrettably, the northern region has the highest unemployment in the mainland of Britain—at 18·1 per cent. overall—and a male rate of over 21 per cent. That is higher than Scotland, with 16·2 per cent., higher than Wales with 17·5 per cent. and unfortunately rapidly approaching Northern Ireland's disastrous 20.8 per cent. Every one in five of our menfolk is unemployed, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) so rightly told the House only last week—this is a fact taken from the North of England county councils association document on the state of the regions—if the present rate of increase persists, we shall have 100 per cent. male unemployment by the year 2000. That sounds like fantasy, but it is fact. It is costing the taxpayer £1,000 million a year to keep our 236,000 unemployed. That is criminal nonsense.
The sin of the century perpetrated by this appalling Government is the obscenity of youth unemployment. No fewer than 75,000 of our young people have never known what it is to have a permanent job. The job gap in the north is now a staggering 250,000. One quarter of a million of our people are crying out for work. That leads me to refer to this morning's edition of The Journal and of the Northern Echo. The Northern Echo headline says:
'You can't win' message enrages MPs
The Journal headline says
MPs debate despair of the North.
Both go on to talk about the astonishing response from the Minister of State, Department of Employment. He said in effect "There is nothing we can do about unemployment." The Opposition do not accept that.

Dr. Keith Hampson: rose—

Mr. Brown: I am not giving way because there are many right hon. and hon. Members who wish to speak and it is not fair to have lengthy interventions, such as the hon. Gentleman's would be.
I shall deal with the region's infrastructure. The problems we face cannot be overcome without a massive injection of effort to lift and extend the infrastructure. What is happening under this Government? There has been less spent on roads since 1979 than in other areas. The massive expenditure on roads has been in the soft underbelly of the south-east. The latest Department of Transport proposals delay schemes in the region, such as the Newcastle A69 western bypass, improvements to the A66 in Cumbria and Durham and the bypasses to Haltwhistle and Haydon Bridge on the A69. Derelict land grants have fallen by 22 per cent. in real terms since the Government took office.
Social problems in the region automatically follow economic problems. In 1979–80 one in five households had an income of under £40, which is a worse figure than any other region and twice that of the south-east. Welfare benefits cost the country more in the north than in any other region. They are 47 per cent. higher than the United Kingdom average and 35 per cent. worse than the next worst region, which is the north-west. God knows, no one would have believed in 1979 that a prosperous industrial area such as the north-west could have been driven into despair in three and a half short years by a Government, but this lot have managed it.
Ill health and high death rates are endemic to the north, yet we are short of doctors and dentists. The region depends upon public housing and yet housing investment programmes have been well below the bids submitted by our Labour councils. In 1982–83 the region's allocation was less than half what it was when the Government took office. Fewer houses have been built. There are still 230,000 houses—one in five—unfit or in need of modernisation. At the present rate of progress, it will take a quarter of a century to put those houses into a decent state of repair and fit for people to live in. It is a crying scandal when one bears in mind the present number of unemployed construction workers. Social security benefits take one third of the region's public expenditure. It is a sad reflection on and condemnation of Government policy.
I come now to the positive side of my speech, which is the action needed. We badly need the Government to reverse their policy and accept that they must have a positive regional dimension in their economic and investment policies. I recall with astonishment what happened when, in his previous office, the Secretary of State for Education and Science accepted an invitation to a meeting of the northern group of Labour Members. I recall saying to him "Secretary of State, why will you not be honest and admit that you have no stomach at all for regional development, or for carrying out regional policy? Why do you not admit that, if you could decently do so, you would abolish regional policy completely the day after tomorrow?" He is not a man who is guilty of being full of mirth. He rocked in his seat and said "Oh Bob, you know well enough that if I could, in fact, abolish regional policy the day before tomorrow I would, but I cannot." That was his attitude. I do not see his successor as being any more committed to a firm regional policy than he was.
I do not apologise for saying that we need positive disrimination in favour of the north because of the deep-seated and long-standing problems that we face. If anyone believes that positive discrimination is a revolutionary proposal, let me refer him to the demands for positive discrimination to which we have acceded. There is positive discrimination for youth, women and ethnic minorities. Why not for the northern region? Policies must be tailored to the needs of the region if there is to be any justice or equity for our people.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) has intervened on many occasions in these debates. I paraphrase what he has said as a loyal Government supporter over and over again: "Once we get an upturn in the national economy we shall get an upturn in the economy of the northern region." I wish to challenge that before he says it tonight. An upturn in the national economy will not solve the region's problems. It never has done before and it will not do so in the future. The nature of the jobs that we have lost on a massive scale is such that they will never return.
The Government should go ahead with the creation of a northern development agency to put us on a par with Scotland and Wales. Jobs created by new technology must be brought in and if private enterprise will not do so then the Government must. Why not let us have preferential tax rates for industry and preferential interest rates for new small industries? The Government are fond of new small industries and we should like dearly to have many more in the northern region.
We need desperately a comprehensive and whole-hearted attack on the misery of unemployment Earlier retirement, work-sharing, reduced overtime and shorter working hours must all be considered. Local firms must be expanded, even if they are in difficulty. In many cases they are all we have. Major companies on which we depend must be assisted. It takes decades to replace a major firm. If anyone doubts that, he should look at Consett where only two years ago there were thriving and profitable steelworks. There is now a greenfield site with a few small industries coming in. However, if one takes a factory such as Tress in my constituency, which closed with the loss of 450 jobs, and the Vickers factory at Scotswood, which closed with the loss of 750 jobs, it takes a devil of a lot of nursery factories employing 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 to make up that leeway.
Threatened closures should be considered on a regional basis. Why should the north suffer every time—shipbuilding on the Tyne, the Tees and the Wear, steel in Durham, Cleveland and Cumbria, and coal mining in Northumberland and Durham? Research and development facilities must be moved from the overcrowded south-east to the much more pleasant environment of the north.
Student grants should be introduced to encourage youngsters to stay at school, which will help to give them better job opportunities when they leave.
All my suggestions would cost less than 1 per cent. of public investment and are a better way forward than spending £1 billion a year on unemployment benefits in the region.
Changes, of necessity, are long-term but changes must be made in the region's economy, infrastructure, environment and social background by Government policy to stimulate employment through construction and public investment projects. We need an immediate speed-up in


the roads programme, increased house building and support for local authorities in economic investment. Things would have been a lot worse had it not been for the efforts of our local councils. I wish to pay tribute to the Labour councils in the area for the efforts they have made for their own people. We need more doctors and dentists in the region and more investment in health care, particularly in areas of severe disadvantage which were so effectively set out in the Black report.
Behind the facts I have put to the House lies much human suffering among individuals and families in the north. I fervently wish that I could hope for an immediate Government response to the action needed. Alas, I have no such hope. The only way forward for our people is the return of a Labour Government committed to an alternative economic policy. In conclusion, I say to the Prime Minister, who has laid waste to the north with a savagery only equalled by the Conquerer 900 years ago, "May God forgive you—the people of the northern region never will."

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Alison): This is the second of two Opposition motions on the Order Paper on unemployment in the different regions. I am bound to say that, of the two, the motion on the northern region is particularly fatuous. That is the only word that I can apply to it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] Anybody who is old enough to read the words on the Order Paper will scratch his head at the notion that unemployment in the north of England was virtually unknown until May 1979, when the "wicked" Tories invented it. The idea that it has been
largely created by the iniquity of
the Conservative Government, who took office less than four years ago, is so ludicrous and patently false that any impartial observer would think that a party which can debate in those terms is not worth listening to or following.
I observe, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you come from the north and that you will have great difficulty in remaining impartial—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—but I know that you will be. You understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that was intended to be a compliment to you and not in any way a reflection.
Just for the record, let me remind the House and right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches that from the time I entered Parliament in the mid 1960s until the election in May 1979—a period in which there was a 2:1 ratio of Labour to Conservative Administrations—unemployment in the northern region rose nearly three times, from 2·5 per cent. to nearly 8 per cent. Under the previous two Labour Governments unemployment increased nearly three times. I shall give the figures because in the debate on the east midlands hon. Members pooh-poohed mere percentage increases as being unimpressive or insignificant.
When the Tories left office after 13 wasted years, as they were called, there were for the inheritance of the incoming Labour Government 28,000 unemployed in the northern region. When Labour left office in 1979, the figure had risen to 110,000—more than three times as great. More than 100,000 people were unemployed as a result of the tide that started flowing while the Labour Government were in office. With a tide which raised the

level of unemployment from 28,000 to more than 110,000 in 1979, it is not surprising that with a world recession it rose to 235,000. You will notice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it was a less significant increase in percentage and human terms than that which applied under the previous Labour Government.

Mr. Ted Graham: The right hon. Gentleman believes it.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) says that I believe it. Those are the facts and they are well established. One must believe the facts that hurt and hit human beings.
In the period of the Labour Government from 1975 to 1979, unemployment rose from 4·2 per cent.—about 55,000—to almost 8 per cent. —110,000—in spite of the enormous expenditure on help for the region. To do justice to that Government—the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown) was in office at the time—more than £600 million was spent on regional development grants, £31 million on section 8 assistance and £76·3 million on section 7 assistance. I give them credit for that. They threw some money at the problem—nothing like as much as the scale of increase in unemployment, but they certainly put some money into dealing with the problem.
Taking a slightly longer perspective, I remind the House that out of a total national allocation of regional grants of about £3·3 billion between 1972 and 1982—this deals with the point of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West about the absence of positive discrimination, as he calls it—the northern region received more than £1 billion. That was under two Governments—the Labour Government and the present Government. That represents 30 per cent. of the total grants awarded to the whole of Britain, whereas the northern region's working population, at about 1·3 million, represents less than 6 per cent. of the British total. If that is not positive discrimination, I do not know what it is.
Yet still the unemployment grew—

Mr. Mike Thomas: rose—

Mr. Alison: I must make my speech brief because I wish to allow as many right hon. and hon. Members as possible to contribute.
Yet still the unemployment grew. All the ingredients—the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West turned to his positive proposals at the end of his speech—that the TUC and the Labour party are now proposing were present in the 1960s and 1970s when unemployment doubled and doubled again. There was a social contract, an attempt at a prices and incomes policy, devaluation, the value of sterling fell progressively, huge increases in public expenditure and yet, in spite of all these ingredients, unemployment doubled under the Labour Government and doubled again.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Alison: If throwing money at the problem could have solved persistent and growing northern region unemployment, it would long since have disappeared. But, like a shower in the desert, the money has largely washed away without creating any jobs. I remind the House that during the 1970s national income increased by


300 per cent.—a rate of more than 30 per cent. a year—while real output increased by only 25 per cent., or 2½ per cent. a year. In other words, virtually all the expenditure went up the chimney in prices. Is it any wonder that the British public is now ready to come to grips with the problem of inflation?

Mr. John Horam: rose—

Mr. Alison: To allow as many hon. Members as possible to speak, I wish to make a short speech to defend the Government against the hon. Gentleman's swingeing attack.
It is the Government's conviction that, given an upturn in world trade, which the hon. Gentleman mocks so readily, the falling inflation rate and the fact that interest rates are falling, the money being spent in the region will provide a real springboard for the future.
I remind the House of what has been done in the way of expenditure for the northern region since the Government took office. The region has been given £469 million in regional development grants. The hon. Gentleman accused us of cutting back on what his Government did, but we have not done that. Pro rata, regional development grant expenditure is well up on what he and his party spent. The region has received selective assistance of about £80 million. The Government recognise that parts of the region suffer from serious urban deprivation, so £107 million has been allocated since 1978–79 to Newcastle, Gateshead, Sunderland, Middlesbrough and Hartlepool under the urban programme. With the rest of Britain, the region benefits from many other support schemes for industry generally.
For example, under the Department of Industry's loan guarantee scheme, since June 1981, 318 guarantees have been issued in the region covering loans totalling £10·1 million. There are now enterprise zones at Newcastle, Gateshead, Hartlepool and Middlesbrough. The Government recognise the vital role that small firms can play in the economy, and during the past three years we have introduced no fewer than 98 separately identifiable schemes or measures to help small business men. However, profitable businesses, not Governments, in the end create worthwhile permanent jobs. The Government can pursue policies that help to create the right environment in which firms can prosper. Lower interest rates, reduced national insurance surcharge and, above all, the reduction in inflation help us to do that.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West was especially anxious about industrial development and the economic infrastructure. No less than £630 million has been spent by central and local government and the European Community in the past eight years to encourage the establishment of new manufacturing concerns in the region. Additionally, during the past three years alone, £1,000 million of public money has been invested in the region to upgrade the fuel, power, telecommunications, transport, water and sewerage services, all of which the hon. Gentleman said that we should help. We have done that, and it has enormously enhanced the attractiveness and the vitality of the local economic environment.
Since 1975, nearly 50 per cent. of the European regional development fund quota section grants for England have gone to the northern region. That is, again, a distinct shift of emphasis to that region. More than 300 large infrastructure projects, costing more than £100,000

each, including the Kielder reservoir, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) will know, and the Tyneside metro, have been assisted. Tyne and Wear and Cleveland are major beneficiaries under the non-quota section of the European regional development fund that assists small firms development and the re-use of redundant industrial premises. Much of county Durham can share in those benefits in 1984, which is a promising prospect. The north has also been one of the principal English beneficiaries from the European Coal and Steel Community, the European social fund and the European investment bank.
Despite the difficult circumstances, people in the region are finding jobs. During the past 12 months, more than 67,000 people were placed in employment by the Manpower Services Commission's employment service, and many more will have found jobs by other means. Of course, we still have a long way to go. In the meantime, we are protecting those hardest hit with our special employment and training measures, and about 22,000 people in the region are benefiting. In addition, 56,000 young people started courses under the youth opportunities programme in 1981–82. The hon. Gentleman made special reference to the needs and vulnerability of youths. That is an enormous increase in the numbers entering the scheme, and 42,000 have started courses since 1 April 1982.
Therefore, the news is not all gloomy and bad. It s no longer all about redundancies and firms closing. There are good news stories. Expansions are taking place, new projects are being set up and new jobs are being created to replace those that have been lost. However, it is not happening as fast as we would have wished.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Give an example.

Mr. Alison: I was about to finish my speech at that point, but I shall go on to answer the hon. Gentleman. One example is that Fisher Price of Peterlee is expected to create about 400 jobs by 1984 as a result of a multi-million pound investment that has already taken place. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East laughs, but I have given him the example for which he called. The Peterlee plant will be Fisher Price's largest plant outside the United States of America. Findus Frozen Foods Ltd in the Newcastle area is expected to create 700 new jobs by 1984. An electronics company, Isocom, has recently established itself in Hartlepool. It will create 70 new jobs during the next two years and could build up to a 450-strong work force by 1988. Swan Hunter on the Tyne has received some extremely lucrative orders in recent months. Opposition Members should not forget that, of the £700 million that has been given to support British Shipbuilders since nationalisation, £600 million has been given by this Government. Without the special help to assist Swan Hunter in winning the order for the replacement of the Atlantic Conveyor, there would be nothing like as much work for the company.
Opposition Members asked for examples of increases in real money going into the region. I have tried to show in this short speech that the real cause of the decline in jobs and the largest increase in real terms of the unemployed in percentage terms was the doubling and redoubling that occurred under the Labour Government. They started the tide flowing. It flowed into the period of office of this Government and has doubled yet again. But thanks to our policies on public spending and the control of inflation,


there are better prospects—and we are already seeing the effects in the examples that I gave—than there has ever been of a regeneration in the north. This motion deserves to be repudiated.

Mr. Frederick Wiley: Of the Minister's speech I shall say only that it was infantile and, when he talked about a springboard, it was deceitful. I am speaking in this debate because it may be my last opportunity to speak in a debate on the north. Apart from the few years during the war, my political life has been spent in confrontation with the problem of unemployment. Even when the economy was going well I complained that in Sunderland we had more than twice the national average of unemployed. I also complained—I say this in view of the Minister's speech—that we did not and do not have an adequate and effective regional policy.
Before the war, in 1937, Hugh Dalton and his committee of inquiry came to the north-east to consider the distressed areas. I know, despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown) said about our needs, that social provisions are radically better than they were in the 1930s and that the north-east is no longer a distressed area. But it may be surprising to the Minister that unemployment in Sunderland is as bad as it was in 1937. It is exceptionally bad and continually and rapidly getting worse. What is new is that one has only to go to the town now to realise that there are far too many unemployed people littered about. One has only to go to the town to realise that it now is being disfigured by industrial dereliction.
I emphasise my point about policy. I know that our bookshelves are full of reports about what should have been done in the 1960s, the 1970s and now in the 1980s and even the 1990s. They have not added much to dealing with the basic problems of the region. The same is true of Sunderland. Years ago, Sunderland town council did not tell woeful tales of its difficulties. It formulated and presented reports, it made practical suggestions, it met Ministers and officials, it held campaigns and did everything else that it could but the result was pitifully little.
As a result, we have become more parochial. We set up an industrial committee to provide an effective liaison between the council and people in the town who were affected by unemployment. More recently, we set up a "war for work" board. It includes representatives of the council and all those concerned with unemployment in the town. It includes officials, including some from the Manpower Services Commission. It does its best for the town within its resources. We have set up computer files on commerce and industry. We have helped with training. Indeed, we anticipated the report of the CBI and the TUC. We have assisted with information technology, we have held surgeries for those people who might venture into small businesses, we have held conferences and we have been in touch with the EC bureaucracy in Brussels but we have not succeeded in getting the feasibility study that we wanted. It looks as though we shall get one for Tyne and Wear and we shall try to provide a focus on the difficulties in Sunderland.
I believe that the decision to carry out feasibility studies for the whole of Tyne and Wear was wrong. If we are

examining the regions, we must try to establish manageable units and see what we can do there. Over the years, I have made a score of proposals about what might be done about Sunderland. I still believe that it would be useful to have a commissioner for Sunderland. We must try to develop an effective executive to deal with the problems. The "war for work" board has contributed to that, but it is limited because it depends on its own resources. It has had the great advantage of the enthusiastic co-operation of the town council and the valuable co-operation of the Sunderland Echo. We have done all that we can and will continue to do so. I suggest that the Government might assist us.
That would be a beginning. The Government are always telling us to help ourselves. Here is a community that has probably done more than any other in an attempt to help itself. We need Government assistance. That would help, although the help is likely to be minimal compared with our massive unemployment and the massive loss of jobs that we have suffered. I do not want to create difficulties, but the loss to Korea of the order that the Sunderland shipyard might have had may have been the last knock that one of our important yards will get. Shipyards are now in peril. It is a national disaster. We have only four and a half merchant shipyards in the country. If one of them is lost—it makes little difference whether it is mothballed—it will be a serious loss to Sunderland and a grave aggravation to our problems. Will the Minister examine the problem to see what he can do to help those people who have tried to help themselves? The scale of unemployment is becoming unmanageable. That is also a political threat. I hope that one thing that we get out of this debate is a promise from the Government that they will at least do a little to help Sunderland with its difficulties.

Mr. A. J. Beith: It was informative and moving for the House to hear the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) speak. He has long experience of unemployment in one of the north's worst unemployment blackspots. What he said underlined the fact that the problem of unemployment has been with us for a long time. No one can complain that it has all been created by the present Government. I disagree with the wording of the Opposition motion in that respect.
However, the Minister of State seemed to show no appreciation of the scale of the tragedy that exists in the north. He had no understanding of what it means to have the highest rate of unemployment in Britain. It is now on a scale that puts vast numbers of people who are of prime working age out of work. For many years, we have had the problem of older men who lose their jobs not being able to find fresh work. Now, however, people in the age range during which people are normally employed are out of work. We also have a serious problem of youth unemployment. It is a tragedy of massive proportions.
The tone of the Minister's speech suggested that he has not begun to grasp what is involved, still less address himself to the problem. I invite any hon. Member who doubts that assessment to get a member of the public to read the Minister's speech.
There are several ways in which the Government should address themselves to the problem. Some concern their general economic policy and others their regional policy.
With regard to the latter, I shall concentrate on the rural and coal mining areas of Northumberland which are my principal concern.
However, I shall deal with general economic policy first. It has a bearing on the whole of the north-east. Unless the Government are able to embark on an economic policy that involves significant public investment, the north-east will continue to suffer. The Government are held back from undertaking that type of investment because they believe that inflation can be controlled only by monetary measures. Because the Government are unwilling to embark on an incomes policy, they are unwilling to embark on the other side of the equation—serious public investment. The result is that they pay to keep people out of work rather than paying to keep them in work.
My party and my colleagues in the Social Democratic party have argued for a programme of investment that is associated with a different general economic policy which would enable us to start investing in what the community needs for the future. That would bring immediate benefits to some of our key industries in the north-east. If we started building again, not only would our construction industry benefit, but brickyards and quarries would start to operate rather than remaining in their depressed state. If work on renewing out-dated sewerage systems got under way, our concrete pipe manufacturers would be in work again rather than having to stockpile and lay off staff. If we electrified our railway system, we should improve communications to the north and create jobs in the process. There is a range of activities in which investment would provide what the region needs for the future and provide jobs at the same time. We should improve the environment by tackling the problem of derelict land. As was said earlier, we now have more derelict land than when the derelict land reclamation programmme started. Unless the Government's economic policy changes, the north is condemned to remain in an appalling condition.
There are many areas of specific regional policy about which I am deeply worried. Not long ago the Government removed development area status from the whole of my constituency and reduced the Alnwick and Amble travel-to-work area to intermediate status. Just before Christmas the Government devised a new method of calculating the unemployment figures in the hope that this would show unemployment at a lower level. All that happened in my constituency was that the new system demonstated unemployment to be higher than the Government had realised. The level of unemployment in the Alnwick and Amble area increased from 15 to 18 per cent. Faced with this appalling figure, how can the Government possibly defend the taking away of development area status in what has, for a long time, been an unemployment problem area?
Alnwick now finds itself with a significantly higher rate of unemployment than many places in development areas or special development areas. I do not understand how the local authorities and others can be expected to tackle the problems of the area if they are outbid all the time by special development areas, some in relatively prosperous parts of the country and some even in relatively prosperous parts of the region, that have far higher levels of assistance available to them. The Minister will by now have received representations from Northumberland county council on this matter.
At the same time as the figures show the high level of unemployment in the Alnwick and Amble area, the Government have decided to restrict the opening of the

Amble jobcentre to two days a week. As there are no jobs for the jobcentre to display in the window, the Government have decided that the jobcentre itself is not necessary. Its very existence will be threatened as the next stage of scrutiny proceeds. It is depressing for those trying to help themselves in such an area constantly to find Government decisions working against them.
The Minister has referred to the number of grants received by the north from the European Community. Yet the local authorities find that whenever they receive European Community support for a project, there is no net benefit. The recognition by the European Community that the region has problems is negated by Government decisions to claw back funds by assuming that the money can replace expenditure that the Government themselves might have spent. The net effect is to lower the effective degree of priority according to the region. Instead of Europe contributing something extra in recognition of the north's problems, the value of the contribution is reduced.
The most rural parts of the north face particular problems. We are grateful at least that the development commission remains at work carrying out a valuable job in producing advance factories, small workshops and imaginative projects of various kinds. I hope that it will retain its flexibility for the kind of work that it performs.
However, a number of other Government bodies seem to be under pressure to pursue policies that are severely detrimental. For instance, the Government have told the Forestry Commission to take action that will cause further unemployment in rural areas. An instruction has been given for the commission to change its management structure so that there are no longer local offices in individual forest areas. This removes valuable jobs.
Even more dramatic in its effect is the Government's insistence that the commission must sell large plots of forest throughout the region. Pressure seems to be mounting to sell more in the northern region because of the degree of opposition to forest sales encountered in other parts of the country. Forestry work, instead of being carried out by people living in forestry villages, which were built to provide employment in rural areas, will be done by contractors from towns and cities many miles away. Rural unemployment will be generated by the determination to sell off more forestry land. The countryside was persuaded to accept forestry and to lose much good sheep farming land where shepherds were employed on the basis that this would provide employment in the rural areas. That employment is now being taken by contractors from the urban areas.
The north does not have the voice in Government that it should have. There is no Secretary of State who can threaten to resign if a major loss of jobs is threatened in the north of England. There is no Select Committee on the affairs of the northern region. There is no northern development agency. There is no body that has the weight in Government that is possessed by some other parts of the United Kingdom.
No such body was provided under the previous Labour Government. In all the discussions on devolution, we never achieved the northern development agency to which we felt entitled. It is therefore even more incumbent on the Minister of State to ensure that the north gets a fairer deal. Any examination of the state of unemployment in the north demonstrates that the north is not getting that fair deal. Little hope has been generated by what Ministers have had to say today.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Sir William Elliott.

Mr. Jack Dormand: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I note that there are two Conservative Members trying to catch your eye whose constituencies are not situated in the northern region. I seek your guidance, Sir. When there are so many Opposition Members wishing to speak, is it proper that the two hon. Members to whom I have referred should be trying to intervene in a debate on an area in which their constituencies are not located?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is a debate in the House. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Chair takes note of the many reasons that hon. Members have for feeling that they should be called.

Sir William Elliott: I find that point of order a little unfair but it is not for me to say so. It occupied a certain amount of what is already a short period allowed for the debate.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has, as always, put a good case for his constituency interest. He is right to do so. I know the Amble and Alnwick areas. I do not, however, agree with what the hon. Gentleman had to say about the north not having full Government consideration. I do not believe that to be true now or in the past, under both Conservative and Labour Governments. If anything, the north has had an excess of Government consideration. The hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) laughs, but I believe this to be so. During the period of the Labour Government so many Labour Ministers came to Newcastle that I made the calculation that they were arriving at the rate of two and a half a week.

Mr. Dormand: That shows commitment.

Sir William Elliott: I agree that the commitment has always existed. That is the point I was making to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. That commitment remains. The letters that I receive from Government Ministers informing me, out of courtesy, that they will be visiting Newcastle are frequent. I do not believe that the northern region has ever been neglected by Governments of either party.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown) was kind enough to say that I have intervened in these debates on a number of occasions. I have tried to work out how many—I am always doing measurements with my excellent, long-serving and long-suffering secretary—debates of this nature I have taken part in. The most accurate calculation we could make is two a year, which means that I have spoken in about 50. The debates are a little unbalanced in one respect. There are always more Labour Members than Conservative Members present. I have always maintained that this is a temporary embarrassment.
In any case, it is good to be debating once again with my fellow Members of Parliament representing the northern region. I have been attending these occasions for a long time, although the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has served even longer. It was interesting to hear the right hon. Gentleman suggest that he may have taken part in his last northern debate. I suppose that the same may apply in my case. We never

know. I have always listened to the right hon. Gentleman with great respect. The right hon. Gentleman feels deeply about the town of Sunderland, which he has represented with distinction for many years.
The problem of unemployment has always featured in debates on the northern region. That is what we have to appreciate, whichever side of the House we are on. I have spoken in these debates from both the Opposition and the Government Benches. Whether my party has been in Government or Opposition, the problem of unemployment has been with us. I entered the House 25 years ago. Believe it or not, the north at that time had reasonably full employment, according to the late Hugh Gaitskell's measurement of full employment. The storm clouds were gathering, however, and it was then that the lord mayor of Newcastle called the first conference to consider the problems posed for the area by the contraction of major industries.
Since then, under both Labour and Conservative Governments, the problem of unemployment has been progressive. The problem is unavoidable in an area with a contracting major industry. Secondly, the problem is unavoidable anywhere in this country or in any other modern western country, because of the advance of automation. Whatever answers are suggested, the problem will remain with us. Perhaps we have not yet found the right answers, but we keep trying. Both Labour and Conservative Governments have tried, and to some extent they have succeeded. The motion suggests that the Government are creating "an industrial desert". That is an unfortunate suggestion. I thought that we had left that phrase behind years ago, and I suggest that we should do so right now. The north needs to attract new business and new enterprise. Will people from outside be encouraged to create jobs there if it is suggested that the region is an industrial desert? That suggestion is nonsense.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: The hon. Gentleman ought to quote from the motion. We say that the north is
in imminent danger of becoming an industrial desert".

Sir William Elliott: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I still dislike the phrase. In the early debates on the region in which I took part, the House tried to get away from that phrase because it gave the wrong impression of a splendid area in which any business might well develop successfully.

Mr. Mike Thomas: I go a long way with the argument of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott). I do not particularly like the words in the Labour motion. However, it is hard to convince the people of Newcastle—the city that both the hon. Gentleman and I represent—that things are going well and that the Government are behaving properly when one of the two shipyards in my constituency is now on a care and maintenance basis and there are already 1,800 redundancies coming down the track and more have been announced. If ships had not, unfortunately, been sunk in the Falklands, those yards would be in even more desperate trouble. The power plant industry may well be under threat as well. Those are the practicalities. How does the hon. Gentleman explain them to the people of Newcastle?

Sir William Elliott: I have been explaining things to the people of Newcastle for a long time, and I shall continue to do so. As many hon. Members want to speak


in this debate, I hope that I shall not be interrupted at length. I have certain things to say and, like the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North, I may not have another opportunity to say them.
We know about the problems of the shipyards. We are trying to overcome them. If I may keep to the unfortunate suggestion in the motion about an industrial desert, there are many bright spots. So much good is happening in the northern region. The excellent firm of NEI Parsons of Heaton has recently won an enormous contract which could be worth £50 million. I believe that the suggestion that the region is an industrial desert does more harm than anything else.
To suggest that there has not been Government spending on the infrastructure of the region is also a fallacy. As has been pointed out, the Tyneside metro system is the most modern railway system in the world.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: That was under a Labour Government.

Sir William Elliott: With respect, it was a Conservative Government, but there was general agreement on both sides of the House.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The Conservatives tried to kill it.

Sir William Elliott: There was agreement on both sides that it should come into being. There was a certain hesitation because of the cost, but I am happy to say that I believe that the then Conservative Minister of Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), was finally persuaded by Dame Irene Ward and myself. I believe that we tipped the balance during the course of a long and heated afternoon, but whether or not that was the case the system exists and it is nonsense to suggest that there has not been Government spending on the region. Again, in relation to that well-worn word "infrastructure", I believe that the north-east has the finest road system anywhere in the country. I defy any other to match it. Of course, all this was not only the work of Conservative Governments. Both Labour and Conservative Governments have done their best to improve the area and to get the infrastructure right, and they have largely succeeded.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West suggested that the region needed a "positive regional dimension". What on earth does that mean?

Mr. Robert C. Brown: A regional policy.

Sir William Elliott: He seemed to want yet another body—perhaps a Minister for the North or another regional planning council, if one dares mention that term—but the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North and I, and indeed other hon. Members, have been through all that before. We went through all that in the 1960s. Having won the 1964 election, the Labour Government said loudly and clearly that they intended to correct regional imbalance and to put the north of England and other development areas into balance with the rest of the country. Lord George-Brown, very impressive as the then Minister responsible, set up the economic planning councils, including one for the northern region. Is that what the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West means by a "positive regional dimension"? I name no names, but when that council had been in existence for some time, its officers invited all Members of Parliament

for the northern region to Wellbar House in Newcastle to hear what the council was doing. The chairman made a long speech, at the end of which Lord Shinwell, then a Member of this House, asked him what the council had actually achieved so far. The answer, after a good deal of hesitation, was that it had brought together 13 planning authorities. That was as much as the chairman could say.
Where is the economic planning council now? It has gone. Whatever happened to the National Plan, introduced by the Labour Government at that time? It has gone. It is on the bookshelves, as the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North mentioned. It is no good suggesting that there is an easy answer. If anyone says there is one, I denounce him wholeheartedly on the basis of my experience as a Member of Parliament. Both parties detest unemployment. Members of both parties from the northeast of England have striven in their time in this House to do something about it. We strive to some effect. It is no good imagining that by a change of Government the problem of unemployment can be cured in the northern region or elsewhere. Does anyone seriously believe that?
Is anyone from the Opposition Benches seriously suggesting to the north-east of England and to the nation that the election of a Labour Government will end unemployment? I do not believe it for one moment. The gloom that is engendered does no good at all. There is so much happening that is good.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Come on, it is our debate.

Sir William Elliott: If the hon. Gentleman says "It is our debate"—[Interruption.]

Mr. Mike Thomas: They think they own the Louse of Commons.

Sir William Elliott: That is right. They possibly do think they own the House of Commons. That kind of remark will encourage me to go on much longer. I have had a lot of practice on over 50 occasions. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West and I attended the opening of Vickers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, in the centre of Newcastle. That magnificent building is bang in the middle of an enterprise zone established by this Government. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that that magnificent building, which is very important for Newcastle, for his constituents and for mine, would not be standing today but for the enterprise zone legislation of this Government.
I have no doubt that hon. Members opposite try to keep in touch with English Industrial Estates, as do I. Day by day and week by week that organisation tells a very encouraging story. English Industrial Estates reports to me—these are hard facts—that lettings of factories on its estates are in general 88·5 per cent. above the same period last year. In the Team valley and Hartlepool enterprise zones the lettings are most encouraging. Ten new factories have been established in the Hartlepool enterprise zone in the past year. That must be very good news for the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) who is, as always on these occasions, in his place. Twenty new factories have been established in the enterprise zone at Team valley. The Government were very wise when they extended the enterprise zone system in the north of England. We now have another two enterprise zones. There is nevertheless still a great deal to trouble us all about the northern region.
I shall oblige the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West when I say that we are now experiencing a slow but distinct economic revival.

Mr. John Ryman: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the point of the enterprise zones, may I ask whether he would agree that there has been a net loss of regional aid as the special development areas were abolished by the Government as early as August 1979?

Sir William Elliott: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to employment in the country as a whole, as far as English Industrial Estates is concerned, there is a break-even position, but in the northern region there is a deficit. The deficit is being overtaken. I believe that the work of English Industrial Estates is to be highly commended by us all. A great deal is happening that is good. We have some splendid industry in the north-east of England. How splendid are the efforts of the NEI, which is so important to the constituency of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and to the whole of the northern region. Our industry in general, be it large or small, is doing well at this time. We are experiencing problems with closures, but there are openings. The closing of the Consett steelworks was serious in terms of employment. When one thinks of the 3,500 job losses at Consett, the problem is enormous. Nevertheless, Findus Foods has introduced 900 new jobs by establishing a factory at Longbenton. At Consett No. 1, as we call the estate, half of that estate is now developed and there are new factories there. There are strong hopes of many more new factories.
I believe that the north-east of England has a great deal to contribute to the common good. The north-east of England is a proud area. We are a proud people. When I go home from London every weekend to Newcastle I cross over the river Tyne, the queen of rivers. I look at the array of royal bridges as I go into the proud city of Newcastle upon Tyne, part of which it has been my privilege to represent in this House for the past 25 years. The north-east of England wishes, above all, to play its full part in the strong economic future of this country as it certainly played its part in our strong economic past.
It has been a great privilege to serve in the House for one of the great cities of our country.

Mr. Jack Dormand: During my time in this House I have attended every debate on regional affairs, as has the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott). On all of those occasions I have never heard a more arrogant or superficial speech from a Minister than I heard tonight. I tell the Minister of State, Department of Employment, and I speak for my hon. and right hon. Friends, how much we resent his reference to the Chair tonight. We take grave exception to that. He tried to turn the reference into a compliment. He is usually recognised as an honourable man. That remark ought never to have been made. We hope that at some point in the debate he will withdraw it.

Mr. Alison: I am proud to count the Deputy Speaker as a close and personal friend. I would be deeply upset if I thought that anything I had said could have been interpreted as in any way disrespectful to him. I was merely trying to point out that as a north-eastern Member

he must sit silent during the debate and that, even though he may have his own views, he would not express them or in any way take part in the debate. I therefore apologise through the hon. Gentleman to our mutual hon. Friend.

Mr. Dormand: I am grateful.
The Minister referred to part of my constituency and talked about the 400 jobs that had been created at the Fisher Price toy factory in Peterlee. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how many jobs have been lost in Peterlee since the Government came to power. I suspect that they amount to many hundreds more than those that have been created. It was, therefore, quite irresponsible to make such a remark.
I shall be brief because I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to contribute to the debate. I too wish to refer to the then Secretary of State for Industry, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). In the first debate on regional policy in this Parliament, the right hon. Gentleman said:
There has to be self-help in the assisted areas. There has to be enterprise, competitiveness, high productivity and a reputation for co-operation between management and the work force … if they are to reach the level of employment that we all want them to reach".—[Official Report, 24 July 1979; Vol. 971, c. 373.]
The right hon. Gentleman said that as if it were Tory party philosophy, but he could have been describing the northern region as it is today. I challenge the Minister to say which of those aspects of self-help are not present in abundance in the north. I start on that note because we in the region are sometimes accused of being too quick to thrust out the begging bowl. Nothing could be further from the truth. We believe in self-help.
The Government often say that regions such as the north can benefit only if the national economy is thriving, but that is not true either. At times when the country was prosperous or reasonably prosperous, the region still had more than its share of unemployment, lack of investment and fewer resources of all kinds than the rest of the country. It is, therefore, even more important in times like the present for the Government to have a regional dimension to all their policies.
However, what do we see in the public expenditure White Paper published last week? The Government are reducing regional aid and cutting back on moneys to the nationalised industries on which the north depends so heavily. Regional and general industrial support is being cut by 21 per cent., to £642 million in the next financial year, 1983–84, and the projections for the following two years imply a further cutback. That is a measure of the Government's interest in and concern for regional policy.
It reminds one of their doctrinaire decision to remove development controls which has benefited the more prosperous areas of the country. It reminds one of their recent decision to transfer their regional offices to other parts of the country. It reminds one of their decision to stop the transfer of Civil Service jobs to the region. That was a disgraceful act. Among other things, it would have meant 1,000 jobs in Middlesbrough, but there were other implications. Small wonder that the northern region, with its 235,435 unemployed, has the highest percentage of jobless—18·1 per cent.—in the United Kingdom outside of Northern Ireland.
The Government's misjudgments and incompetence are nowhere demonstrated more clearly than in their decision to wind up the development corporations of the region's


three new towns at the end of 1985. The three new towns are the most successful job finding agencies in the northern region, and the need for them will continue long after 1985. The announcement of the termination is already causing experienced and dedicated staffs to leave the corporations. I beg the Government to think again before it is too late. I know that the two Ministers present do not have direct responsibility for this matter, but I hope that they will convey my remarks in the strongest terms possible to the Minister responsible in the Department of the Environment.
The motion deals with unemployment in the northern region, but it is not possible, nor is it right, to deal with unemployment in isolation. The problem of the north is multi-deprivation in health, housing, education, low incomes, training, the environment and, despite what the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North said, communications and infrastructure. The Government could make deliberate decisions in those areas so that there could be positive discrimination in favour of our region. If there were time, I could give more statistics to show how far we are below the provision in other parts of the country.
We hear the parrot cry from the Government—we have already heard it tonight—that they are pumping this sum and that sum into the north for this project and that project, but surely at some stage the Ministers concerned must say "Whatever we are doing, it is not succeeding". I and my hon. Friends have said that the number of unemployed continues to rise and remains the highest in the country. Our people say that the Government either do not care or are incompetent. I do not say that. I say that they are both incompetent and they do not care. The record proves it.
Why do not the Government try some of the obvious remedies, such as transferring civil servants' jobs, refusing to allow the closure of pits except for geological reasons, and locating the next Inmos factory in the northern region? It is entirely within the power of the Government to do that. I could give further examples.
Let me refer instead to an interesting speech that was made three months ago by the Minister of State at the Department of Industry, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont). He said that the Government were determined to do what they could to disperse to the regions the head offices and research and development activities of all types of industries. I do not say that that proposal would solve the region's unemployment overnight, but I welcome the thinking behind it. I should like to know what has been done about it since, and whether we could have the same response from the Ministers on the Front Bench tonight.
If there were time, I could give many more constructive suggestions on which the Government could act immediately without waiting for the famous upturn—about which we have heard again tonight—that has been forecast by half a dozen Ministers on half a dozen occasions, but which, unfortunately, is as elusive as ever. It is to the eternal discredit of a Member from the northern region that he contributed to those false hopes. I refer, of course, to the right hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who, with such perceptive vision, saw signs of success all about him when the rest of us were metaphorically blind to such a spectacle.
The problems of the north are exacerbated by the Government's misconceived economic policies, not least their slavish adherence to monetarism. We in the Labour

party say that there are many things that the Government can do now to alleviate our difficulties. I hope that they will not close their mind to the practical and immediate proposals put forward in this debate. All the research reports—of which there have been many, and to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) referred—that have been published in recent months show that there is an ever-widening gap, both social and economic, between the unemployed and the employed. However, there is an additional dimension, and that is the ever-growing gap between the north of the country and the south of the country. That is something that the Government should bear in mind at all times. It cannot be good for the social fabric of the country.
In conclusion, we in the north do not ask for the moon. We simply ask the Government to provide the framework which will release the energy, initiative and dedication of our people to make better lives for their families and to make their contribution to the success of our country, as they have done so faithfully in the past.

Mr. John Horam: Despite the laundry list of so-called achievements which was read out by the Minister in his best head-down, brief-reading style, the Government must shoulder some responsibility for the present position of industry and unemployment in the northern region.
This a banker's Government, a Government who at times seem to run their economic policies solely and exclusively for the benefit of the City of London; and the consequences for industry have been hard indeed. Manufacturing output is now back to the level of 1965. That is a disaster not only for the country but for the northern region which is heavily reliant on manufacturing industry, as many hon. Members have said today. The cruel position of the steel and shipbuilding industries in particular shows how dependent we are on manufacturing industries, despite the progress that we have made in electronics, engineering, textiles and other areas.
The Government's concern with financial rectitude at the expense of industrial common sense has not been offset by any real understanding of regional policy. Indeed, the Government appear to pay as little regard to any coherent idea of regional policy as they do to the northern region itself.
Also, we have been beset by a shift in Government policy towards greater centralisation which has reduced even the power of the region to help itself. That is something which I and perhaps many other hon. Members did not expect. The structure of the rate support grant for local government has been steadily twisted away from its original idea towards ever greater centralisation. The Transport Bill, opposed by all Opposition parties, has given the Government additional power to intervene and control in an extremely detailed way.
Much less publicised has been the reorganisation of Government in the name of efficiency which has worked in the same way. The Rayner report on the reorganisation of the Department of Health and Social Security has meant that the northern region has lost social security offices which are now centralised from Leeds. As a result there has been a stop on the promotion of people in that service and a whole grade of jobs has been removed from the region, incalculably affecting promotion and the career structure of people in the region.
We now have the Gracey report on the reorganisation of the Inland Revenue which will have similar and discouraging effects.
We have got used to the idea in the northern region that the unfettered play of market forces always tended to make us a branch economy of the United Kingdom. It now seems that the Conservatives are intent on making the civil servants of the region the branch workers of the Government, fit only to do routine and menial tasks while the decisions and prospects of real promotion lie elsewhere.
It is not enough to blame the Government, however. Nor, I am sorry to say, does the answer lie in the indiscriminate spending on a huge scale which has been recommended by the report of the North of England County Councils Association, which is now, as we know, Labour controlled. That report, appropriately covered in black, was widely recognised as a disaster which did the region real damage, not simply because of what was said but because it revealed that the Labour leaders of the county councils were completely bereft of ideas. It is not enough, as the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) said, to bemoan what is wrong and fail to come forward with positive ideas about how to put it right. It is not enough just to hang out the begging bowl and expect the Government to do something about it—especially this Government. That is to fail the people of the northern region. We should demonstrate clearly that we too have a strategy and that that strategy is directly relevant to the problems of the northern region as the people are experiencing them from day to day. That strategy should at the moment concentrate on the following points.
First, we need a capital expenditure package, for general reasons as well as regional reasons, which is concentrated not only on large projects, in terms of hospitals, bypasses and other nationalised industry projects, but on a range of small projects such as home heating, insulation and renovation. This, cumulatively, would give the region the immediate prospect of an improvement in employment.
The Government should also recognise their responsibility to buy British wherever possible. That does not always entail greater expense as the Government allege. The money spent on the replacement of the Atlantic Conveyor by way of subsidy will be recouped in two or three years by taxes, national insurance contributions, and so on, paid by those who were put back into work. Similar thinking should have gone into the recent decision on the cable-laying ship. I have read the exchanges between the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) and others early on Tuesday morning and it seems to me that the Government evaded all the questions implicit in this very complicated decision by hiding behind the fact that the CEGB was neither purchasing nor owning the ship in question. Much more detailed thought on the part of the Government should have gone into this decision.
As well as a capital expenditure package there must be particular help for small businesses. The National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses pointed out the other day that 80 per cent. of small companies have a turnover of less than £100,000. That is an area in which the northern region is quite well represented. Those small companies are the seed corn for

future growth in the region. If we help them, we help the region in a fundamental way. I was glad that the federation pointed out that very few of the Government's measures have gone to help those very small companies.
The Government should put a ceiling on capital grants and, with the money saved, bring in a fresh grant structure to build up our human capital, enabling companies, local authorities, the Health Service and so on to pay more to skilled people whom they wish to employ in the northern region. That is the right way not only to retain the talent we have but to encourage more from outside. From what I read in the papers, the Government appear to be considering a review of capital grants. What I fear is that they will simply cut them without making a corresponding increase in our ability to build up the potential in human terms of the northern region. It is, above all, on the people who live in the northern region that our success will depend.
The Government should establish some central mechanism to look at the regional consequences of public expenditure. The Minister of State, who has now left the Chamber, passing on the dreadful task to his colleague, referred to the wasteful nature of much public expenditure. The fact is that this Government, despite their much vaunted, virtuous control of public expenditure, are spending annually £530 million of taxpayers' money on persuading companies to move but £800 million on persuading them to stay where they are. That is absolutely ridiculous. What a convoluted policy we have, where companies are persuaded, on the one hand, to go to new towns and, on the other, to stay in old inner city areas such as Gateshead and central Newcastle. That cannot make sense in any Government's terms.
The north is relatively badly represented in the growth areas of the new technologies. When a range of companies in the United Kingdom were recently asked whether they had produced a new product in the past five years, 83 per cent. of them in the country as a whole said "yes" but only 42 per cent. in the northern region. That is the sort of problem we have to tackle at base. I am glad to see the Minister nodding his head. The Government need to respond to that problem by stepping up the funds for higher education centres in the north of England instead of cutting them back.
They have just lopped half a million pounds off the budget of the Newcastle polytechnic. At the same time, they should link that to the establishment of a new technology centre, or centres, in the north, which would enable companies in the north progressively to upgrade their products and improve the quality of the goods that they sell to the world. That is the right approach. Only if we obtain that structured approach to regional policy, and only if it is combined with imagination, verve and some Government commitment, will the despair which is evident to all those of us who represent the north be replaced by hope.

Mr. Neville Trotter: My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) has reminded us that the problem of unemployment has existed in the region for a long time. He has served the House and the region with distinction for 25 years and I hope that he may yet take part in another debate on the north-east before his well-earned retirement. I have served in the public life of the area for about 20 years and


throughout that time the hunt for jobs has been at the forefront of the minds of those in the north-east. For as long as I can remember we have had to run to stand still even in the good times. As my hon. Friend has said, the reason for that is that we have relied too much on the traditional industries, which are no longer the industries of the future in terms of employment. I refer to such industries as steel, shipbuilding, heavy engineering and coal. It comes as no surprise that at a time of the worst depression that the world has seen for half a century, the situation should be particularly serious for those industries and consequently for our region.

Mr. Mike Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On a subject of this gravity, is it in order for those who have raised the debate on behalf of the official Opposition not even to be represented on the Front Bench?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and the House know that that is a matter for argument and not something over which I have any control.

Mr. Trotter: In due course, no doubt someone will return to the Opposition Front Bench.
It is little comfort to a boilermaker at Swan Hunters or on the Wear who has lost or is in danger of losing his job to be told that the problem is worldwide. That comes as little comfort to someone who faces unemployment in the immediate future. It does not help to be told that the same thing is happening in Germany, Holland, and the other countries of the Western world. Our people are seeking some hope at the end of the tunnel and want to see some end to the gloom and despair. I agree with those who have said that too many of the statistics bandied around portray an attitude of despair. The statistical picture is not reflected in the life that I see around me in the north-east. Statistics can be made to mean anything, but the north-east is not a desert. That is not the north-east to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North and I return over the Tyne bridge every Friday.
However, it is fair for those in the north-east to ask when the present worries will come to an end. The true answer is that no one really knows. However, there have been successes. Mention has been made of the new Vickers tank factory, and some of us attended its opening only recently. We have also heard about large orders that Northern Engineering Industries has won against ferocious worldwide competition. Last week I spoke on a shipping matter to Cunard at Trafalgar House and was delighted to hear that it has recently invested £40 million in its Cleveland Bridge company. I was even more delighted to hear that this company had won an order for £20 million of steel to be provided for a power station in Berlin, although I understand that that was not well received by the German steel industry. However, it shows what is being done, and can be done, and that successes are being achieved by firms in the north-east.
Some fundamental changes have taken place that give us ground for hope in the not too distant future. It would be wrong to say a few weeks or months, but there is ground for genuine optimism in the foreseeable future. Our industry is much more efficient, productive and competitive than it was. The pound is down by one-third. That must help our exporters immeasurably. The combination of greater productivity and the fall in the pound will lead to an upsurge in export orders.
I spoke this week to representatives of the CBI in the north-east. I did not put words into their mouths. Before I raised the subject, they told me that they saw the first sign of things getting better—not only in Britain, but in the United States. One of our problems is that we cannot restore the health of our economy until the world economy improves. That will depend for its timing largely on the health of the American economy. The CBI in the north-east is beginning to see signs of an upturn. There is light at the end of the tunnel, although it would not be right to say for how long the tunnel stretches ahead of us.
There is no easy solution. The fundamental problem of reliance on the wrong industries for the present generation and the future will be with us for the next 25 years, as much as it has been with us for the past 25 years. That problem will be debated in the House for a long time to come. A major period of transition lies ahead. There will be great upheaval for all industries in Western countries. The traditional relationship between Western countries and the developing countries is drastically altered, and cannot be reversed.
The Shipbuilding Bill has been debated in Committee at some length during recent weeks. We heard a great deal about the problems of that industry—especially the effect of the dramatic development in competition from the Far East. We heard how the Korean shipyards work twice the hours per week of the Western shipyards and that the pay is perhaps one-half or one-third of Western wages. There were suggestions that those shipyards were subsidised. As I said in Committee, if they pay one-half of the wages and work twice the hours, they do not need subsidy to be a formidable competitor.
The Japanese are reducing the prices of their ships by 30 per cent. to compete with the Korean yards. They are not too successful. Furthermore, there are no social overheads in countries such as Korea. There are few, if any, regulations about safety at work. There are no state pensions. There is only a primitive infrastructure in education, health and all the other facilities that the West takes for granted. Partly as a result of that minimum spending on overheads, they have invested an incredible percentage of their national income in new plant for their factories. Thus they have not only the benefit of extremely low wages and long hours, but the most modern of plants. That formidable competition now faces the traditional industries in the West. It will not go away, and there is no way in which we can legislate it out of existence.
When I returned from one visit to the Far East, friends in the shipbuilding industry on the Tyne asked why we could not legislate to deal with that competition. How can we do that? We can debate day and night in the House, but the competition will still exist, and we must face that. A fundamental rethink is needed. The north—and, indeed, the country—must unite to meet the challenge.
The depression will end and things will get better in the short term, but the long-term problems will remain. One problem is the shortage of small businesses in the north-east. I do not write off the large, heavy industries—I cannot accept that there will be no future at all for steelmaking, shipbuilding, or the other traditional industries. There must be some base line below which we cannot go, although we can argue about where that should be. We must remain a major, industrial nation if we are to have any future at all.
Many future jobs will undoubtedly have to be provided by service industry, small firms, and a completely


different type of business from that upon which we have relied in the past. There is no doubt that here the north is at a disadvantage. It is lacking in two respects. First, it does not have the headquarters of the larger firms and is, therefore, lacking in top management. It is lacking in the marketing activity, and the financial activity that go with the headquarters of large undertakings. To some extent, it is lacking research and development, and the new products that also go with the headquarters of large undertakings. We have a big disadvantage here compared with Scotland, for example, because the nationalist feeling in Scotland has led to the headquartering of organisations and industries that we have not seen in the north-east.
The second shortage is of sufficient entrepreneurs. The Government are, quite rightly, doing all that they can to encourage small businesses. In the United States, the figures are very interesting. Firms with fewer than 20 employees create over half the jobs in the United States, and firms with fewer than 100 employees create nearly three quarters of the jobs. That will be the pattern for us in the future, and that will be the scale of the additional jobs we shall need.
One of our problems in the north-east is that we have about 40 per cent. below the national average in the number of small firms. I am sorry to hear that only about 300 of the Government loan guarantee schemes have been taken up in the north-east out of about 7,500 in the whole country. I am sorry that there are not more coming forward to take advantage of these schemes. Money is not lacking—I speak with a toe still in the practice of accountancy. What is lacking is takers for the money. We have to give a great deal of thought to this.
We should look at our education system in this regard. Are we doing enough to encourage people to set up on their own and take the initiative and the chance to become entrepreneurs? I suspect that we are not. We should be giving more of our time to this problem.
This is a minor but important point. I should like to see the enterprise allowances applied to the north-east, preferably to some of my constituents. However, I should think regionally, so I hope that the scheme could be applied somewhere in the north-east. The idea is that those who are not in a job can get an advance of money from the Government with which they can set up in a small way. That is a scheme worth encouraging. At present, it operates in five parts of the country, and the cost is not very great, so I should like to see it extended to the north-east. It would be of psychological advantage to the north-east if it was included in that experimental scheme. Some of those without a job could then be given a chance to use their enthusiasm and energy to start on their own.
I do not know to what extent it is possible for us to encourage more research and development in the north-east. We shall have to look to this carefully in the future because it is out of research and development that the new ideas, the new technology and the new products will come, upon which jobs will depend in the future. Many of our firms are already prominent in this effort, but more needs to be done.
In the long run, it is our own efforts in the north-east that will lead to a successful solution of our problems. These problems cannot be underestimated and are due to a fundamental change in the industrial background of the

Western world upon which we particularly depend by history and tradition. A great effort will be needed, and it will have to come from us.
There is much effort going on in the north, and there is much enthusiasm and activity to help business both small and large, although mostly small. The banks are helpful, and not only in the lending of money. Barclays is funding small workshops. Recently, I talked to the British Steel Corporation (Industry) at Consett. A manager from Barclays bank has been seconded there to help administer and organise its scheme.
The Durham business school and the Newcastle polytechnic are enthusiastically exerting a great deal of effort to encourage and assist the available entrepreneurs. It is a pity that more use is not being made of these schemes, due to lack of entrepreneurs in the area.
I am delighted to read that the North-East Development Council has been praised by one of the incoming firms, because one of our weaknesses in the north has been a lack of co-ordination. There are many agencies and bodies desperately trying to be helpful, advance money and give assistance and advice. I am not sure that there is always adequate co-ordination of all that effort and activity. When Palmer Products Incorporated of Pennsylvania opened recently in the north-east, its boss went out of his way to praise the co-ordination that there had been between the various agencies in the area. He said:
At all times the various agencies in the north-east of England worked as a team. There was an aggressive sales approach from everybody—you meant to get our project to the north-east.
And we succeeded. That is the type of co-ordinated effort that we need for the future.
The problems created by the fundamental change in industry will be with us for another 25 years. In the shorter term, however, the end of the depression, which will come in the foreseeable future, will lead to an improvement in job prospects which, at the moment, are blighting the north-east as they are the rest of the country and the Western world.

Mr. Harry Cowans: The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) referred to his being in the accountancy business. If he deals with bankruptcy, he will be in a growth industry. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) joins in these debates regularly, and I pay tribute to that. Although he poured scorn on many of the things tried by the Labour Government, I am afraid that he did not suggest anything constructive in their place. It is one thing to pour scorn—

Sir William Elliott: rose—

Mr. Cowans: I should love to give way, but many of my colleagues wish to speak, and the hon. Gentleman spoke for 20 minutes.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) spoke about the Opposition Front Bench. The terrible tragedy is that the Minister made probably the worst speech ever heard in the House. There was no compassion in what he said. He prayed in aid some measures proposed by the Labour Government. I shall give him a few figures for the record. It is not a solution but it will keep the record right. The key is that under the Labour Government, from 1975 to 1979, the work force in full employment fell by 14,000, or 3,500 per year.


Under the Tories, between 1979 and 1981, the work force in full employment fell by 122,000, or 60,000 a year. That is their growth industry. The Government increased unemployment 20 times faster than anyone else. I suppose that, if the Minister is talking about records, the Government have that record. Let us have all the facts and not just those that suit the Government's case.
We have a problem now, and there are no proposals coming from the Government. When I walked into the Chamber, I thought that I had walked into the wrong debate. I live in the area, but I thought that I must live somewhere else because the Minister said that everything in the garden was lovely and that the Government have done this and that. I challenge him to go to Newcastle—and I shall go with him because he will need protection—and visit some of the unemployment offices and tell them that everything is all right. He should go to some of the jobcentres where there are no vacancies and tell them that it is all right. Frankly, we have had unadulterated rubbish from the Government Front Bench.
Ministers should be ashamed of what is happening. How can they remain complacent while 250,000 people in the north-east walk the streets? I wonder whether any of them has been unemployed. I do not recommend that they try it because they will never do it again. To sit complacent, as the Minister has done tonight, is a disgrace. Although it is true that the Government have put in some money, Government policies have increased the size of the problem. Facts and figures substantiate that.
I do not want to discuss statistics, but I have two more comments to make. Ministers have said flippantly on numerous occasions that the north has come again with the begging bowl. They advocate self-help, but we have already tried self-help. We have converted miners into production workers, and engineers have gone into service industries. We have applied self-help right across the board. Nowhere have the Government been constructive. The Under-Secretary of State for Industry may sigh—perhaps we shall get the compassion from him that we did not get from his right hon. Friend the Minister of State. He suggested nothing, yet he had the audacity to say yesterday:
We cannot win under modern conditions.
Is that a message for the young? Is that a message for the 250,000 people in the north wanting to work?

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: World depression.

Mr. Cowans: The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens) is the world depression.
The Minister also said that
we have an extraordinary situation".—[Official Report, 8 February 1983; Vol. 36, c. 871.]
If the right hon. Gentleman accepts that we have "an extraordinary situation" in the northern region, it will take extraordinary measures to solve it. What will he do about it? I have some suggestions to make. First, he should establish a northern development agency. Secondly, he should cease closing Government offices over which the Government have full control which takes jobs out of the area and sends them somewhere else. That is hardly a declaration of faith in the region. It certainly does nothing to help the north to attract industry.
We are not begging. During the industrial revolution, money that was earned and made in the north flowed

south. Many of us now believe that it is time for the return journey to create the jobs that the Minister is doing nothing about.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: What has a man to say when he comes to the House of Commons while 33 per cent. of his male workers are unemployed? What approach does he make to the House of Commons? I can assure the House that all my workers are heartily stick and tired of economic analysis. They are heartily sick and tired of historical accounts. They are concerned with the present.
They want to know from the House of Commons that there is the will—that is the important word—to deal with a problem that is causing heartache, misery and suffering in thousands of homes. More than that, the unemployed are proud. They are part of the British heritage and they have a stake in wanting their country to be prosperous, competitive and to be able to have their skills and abilities translated into the changing forms of materials so that our manufactures can be spread abroad once again with the proud label "Made in Britain". But what do we have? For the first time we are importing more manufactured goods than we are exporting. British shipbuilding has been stripped naked. The steel industry is being raped.

Mr. Dickens: Yes, in Middlesbrough and Newcastle.

Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Gentleman should shut up. He is a walking disaster. The infrastructure of this economy is bleeding the social lives of our people to death. I coined the phrase recently that the regions are suffering not from industrial vandalism but from industrial rape.
Before we joined the Common Market, the British Steel Corporation was the largest steel undertaking in Europe. What did we do? The Tory Government, compounded by the Labour Government, put chains round the steel industry's wrists, and the regulations of the European Coal and Steel Community said that it was time to cut us down to size. There are no economic arguments here. That was a determined decision. As to British shipbuilding, how can one fight an unnecessary war in the south Atlantic and then ensure that the ship replacements should be built in foreign shipyards? Labour Members forced the Government to give some of the work to Tyne and Wear, but the Minister was audacious enough to take credit for it today.
I have not dwelt upon the economic and statistic arguments because the unemployed have had a surfeit of them. There are mountains of statistics—in constant repetition—that give employment to many people to look after the unemployed. However, we need something different. We must call on a moral purpose to inspire the zest and determination to carry out the task needed to establish proper conditions of work and a good quality of life for our people. Economic arguments may have their place, but I know of no progress in this matter that has not been inspired by a moral purpose.
We are here to represent our people, to understand them, to be in complete accord with their hopes and aspirations and, when they are troubled, suffering or losing out in any way, to give them a dignified place in our society. Our cause is to shine a light on their plight, to champion without reservation their cause and never to desert them, but to uphold the principles that sustain their rights. We must never drift away in thought, feeling or


faith, because our people must have hope. That hope must be found in an expression of will by the Government and in a commitment, especially by the Labour party, that to create work we need only do a little sum. If it costs £5,000 a year to administer and keep a man out of work, why cannot we translate that money into employment? In God's name, why is there an imposition on our nationalised industries of limits on expenditure and finance? In God's name, why are there public expenditure cuts? Why has there been a reduction in grant aids? We are cutting and cutting until we bleed to death.
We must therefore remind ourselves that we have the resources, the materials in the earth and the ability to translate them into such things as roads, houses and hospitals. The private sector would benefit considerably from the large contracts that would come from local authorities and nationalised industries.
Can we not conceive that in a mixed economy the private sector and public utilities are complementary and that there is no reason why one man should be out of work? Nay, there is no reason why any young man or girl should be out of work. Think on that.

Mr. John Watson: I was one of the two Conservative Members who featured in the point of order that was raised by the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand). I shall respond to that. The northern region is receiving a great deal of money and is asking for, or rather demanding, a great deal more. The debate would be artificial if the rest of the country were not represented, as it is the rest of the country that must sign the cheque. I suspect that it may come as a surprise to the hon. Member for Easington to discover that my constituency covers a larger area of the northern region than his own. That is my principal reason for taking part in the debate.
Although what I have said about my constituency covering more of the northern region than that of the hon. Member for Easington is true in terms of area, I concede that its population covers only a limited portion of the northern region and, therefore, I shall take up only a limited portion of the debate.
The part of my constituency that is in the northern region around Sedbergh, Dent, Garsdale and Grisedale has a level of unemployment that is below the national average and certainly below the regional average. If anyone tells me that we should be granted some type of assisted area status, I should reply that the advance factories have come in handy, but that that is all we need. We do not need any more Government cash around Sedbergh because we do not deserve it, because the money could be spent better somewhere else, and because if Government cash came to Sedbergh it would carry with it the identity of a disadvantaged or underprivileged area. That could be counter-productive with regard to attracting industrial investment.
My constituency does not merely fall within the northern region. It also falls in Yorkshire and Humberside and the north-west region. I think that it is unique for an hon. Member to represent three regions, but it enables me to put the regional argument into context. Opposition Members may be interested to know that household income in the northern region is decidedly higher than it is in Yorkshire and Humberside, that investment in the

northern region in electronics and high technology is decidedly higher than it is in the north-west region and that more capital and investment grants find their way from the Government to the northern region than to the north-west region and Yorkshire and Humberside put together.
That leads me to the effectiveness or otherwise of the report on the state of the region that was produced and published by the North of England County Councils Association. An assessment of its success depends upon what its purpose was. If its purpose was to produce statistics that might otherwise have been hidden from public gaze, it has been a limited success. If its purpose was to provide some political ammunition for Opposition Members, it has been a partial success. As it was funded by ratepayers' cash its purpose should have been to make a sincere and objective attempt to draw attention to the problems of the north and north-east. If that was its purpose, it can only pass into history as a miserable failure. It comes up with no original idea other than the concept that money will solve every problem under the sun. The hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam) said in 10 minutes considerably more that was original and valuable to the northern region than the report presents in the best part of 40 pages. Virtually all the 45 paragraphs that make up its conclusions and recommendations request cash and the injection of money. There are hardly any other original ideas. Most of the paragraphs take some gratuitous political sideswipe at the Government for a purpose that I have not been able to establish.
Nowhere in the report is there even an acknowledgement that the region has 5 per cent. of the population but receives 30 per cent. of Government assistance in the form of regional aid. Nowhere is there any mention of the need to achieve local authority efficiency. Nowhere is there any mention of the fact that employers in the northern region, when asked about their biggest problem, stated frequently that it was the burden of local authority rates that troubled them as much as anything. Nowhere is there any reference to the fact that the industrial relations of the northern area, at least by reputation, fall considerably short of that enjoyed by other regions.
My reaction, if I were a Minister, after reading the document would incline me towards saying "Good Lord. They are 5 per cent. of the population. They are getting 30 per cent. of the cash. All they can do is carp, criticise and demand more in ever more strident terms. Until they can come up with something more positive and constructive, they do not deserve it." I would say amen to that.

Mr. David Watkins: During the last election campaign my right hon. and hon. Friends and I said that if a Tory Government, committed to the extreme Right wing policies being put before the country, were elected, the northern region would become an industrial wasteland. Without quibbling about semantics and whether the word in the motion should be "desert" or "wasteland", the plain fact is that we have been proved right. What was a pioneer region of industrial Britain is now overwhelmed by de-industrialisation and unemployment. I would remind hon. Members that this debate is specifically concerned with unemployment.
Every sector of industry, manufacturing or service, in the northern region has suffered job losses. There is no end to the process. Every week, practically every day, brings


news of closures and redundancies in the region. Every informed forecast shows the situation getting progressively worse. A number of hon. Members have referred to my constituency. The local economy has been totally devastated, not only by the closure of the Consett steelworks but by closures and massive redundancies in every other form of employment there.
In the first two years of this Government, my constituency, heavily dependent on manufacturing industry, lost two thirds of its manufacturing jobs. In some parts of my constituency, the unemployment rate is no less than 60 per cent. The youth unemployment rate throughout the constituency and beyond its borders is 80 per cent. There are young men and women in my constituency who left school three years ago and who have never worked. They have no hope of getting work under the present regime.
The long-term prospects are frightening. There is a generation growing up that has no experience of working and no expectation of doing so. The effects are incalculable. I remind the House—the reminder needs to be given—that it was precisely against such a background, with all the hopelessness, the fear and the frustration that it creates, that Adolf Hitler was elected to power in Germany 50 years ago. All too much evidence exists to show that there is no shortage of a willingness in some quarters in this country to exploit the bigotry and nationalism by which he achieved power. It seems to be considered in some circles to be politically more expedient to do that than to declare against unemployment and social injustice.
In the northern region, it is not a case of old industries giving way to new ones. There is a constant loss of jobs in the new science-based industries. In my constituency in recent weeks over 300 jobs have been lost in the Ever-Ready dry battery factory at Tanfield Lea, one of the most modern battery plants in the world. It was opened in the late 1960s and was designed to employ 1,500 people. The number is now down to 650.
Such a blow undoes months of prodigious local effort to create new jobs. I have paid tribute in this House to those local efforts. However, we have heard a great deal today about small firms. But such small firms as have been brought to my constituency are, almost without exception, struggling to survive, let alone expand. New employment opportunities have been created, but only because the primary concern of firms coming to the area has been the receipt of public subsidies. That is the major attraction. The so-called free market, by its very nature, cannot meet the challenge with which the north is confronted. The experience of the region—the experience of my own constituency—makes a clear case for public intervention and public accountability in the public interest. That, and no less than that, is what the Opposition motion means by
urgent and immediate action to regenerate the Northern Region

Dr. Keith Hampson: First, I apologise for missing the first part of this debate as I had to attend a dinner given by Lord Taylor of Blackburn for Terry Casey of the National Association of Schoolmasters.
I was born, went to school and spent many years in County Durham, and I am in the Tyne-Tees television area, so I studied the North-East County Councils Association report. I agree with my hon. Friend the

Member for Skipton (Mr. Watson) that it is a very weak document. Paragraph 139, however, contains an interesting recommendation. It begins:
Although Regional expenditure on basic standards of educational provision does not differ significantly from national averages and in some sectors is markedly better".
That is certainly true. Nursery provision is 60 per cent. compared with the national average of 30 per cent. and pupil—teacher ratios are infinitely better in the primary sector than anywhere in the United Kingdom apart from Scotland. However, the paragraph continues that the
higher expenditure on education is not reflected in the output in terms of school-leavers—their propensity to leave early, their qualifications and their ability to secure places on undergraduate courses.
The report suggests that the Department of Education and Science should commission some research into why that is so.
That is a central point. It defeats the notion that we have heard time and again from Labour Members that money is the answer to everything. Whether it is the Kielder dam, the metro or the roads, one can go and see what money has done in the north-east. It has transformed it in my lifetime. But, as in education, money has not produced results. Something other than money is required. For some reason, standards in education are declining. More money is put in, yet fewer pupils stay on at school and we are at the bottom of the A-level league table for the entire country.
In his opening speech, the Minister said that there was a remarkably low uptake of loan guarantees for small businesses. That is deplorable, but we should not blame the Government. We should blame the people of the north-east for not applying for loan guarantees. There is a connection between the education record and the fact that we are not generating the ideas, the creativity, the entrepeneurship or the initiatives that other regions are generating.
I do not want to spend time countering the arguments of the Opposition, but it is unbelievable that we can debate this topic yet again and hear right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches simply accusing the Government of complacency and of neglecting the north-east. The record speaks for itself. Over a long period, both Conservative and Labour Governments have poured more money into the north-east than into any other English region or even, in some instances, into Scotland. The figures for regional development grant are 32 per cent. for the north-east and 26 per cent. for Scotland, the next English region being the north-west with 16·3 per cent.
Hon. Members cannot go on telling the grotesque untruth that the north-east has been badly done by and has not had its fair share. Other factors are involved. I hope that the Minister will today nail the myth that for some reason or other the Government are not giving enough to the north-east and reiterate the Government's commitment to regional policy and to helping the north-east. The blight on the industrial landscape of our country at Hartlepool, Teeside, and so on is deplorable, but there are longstanding problems related to the whole industrial history of the region. I hope that the Minister will renew the Government's commitment to do something about them.

Mr. James Tinn: In the closing minutes of the debate, I shall be brief as I hope that another Labour Member will yet be called.
The problems of the north are special in two ways. First, unemployment is higher than anywhere else in mainland Britain and has been for some time. Secondly, it is almost a permanent feature of our way of life and not just a regional example of a national and international economic malady. When times eventually improve elsewhere—presumably after the Conservative Government have departed—they will remain bad in the area between the border and the Cleveland hills. We caught the disease first and we shall come out of hospital last unless there is positive discrimination in our favour. Far from exercising positive discrimination, however, the Government have pulled the other way, sometimes even reversing gains made under Labour Governments such as the dispersal of Government offices.
Another sector in which the Government have greatly damaged the region is that of the publicly owned industries, especially steel. In the lifetime of the Government we have lost 15,000 jobs on Teesside in steel alone, more than 13,000 of them in my constituency. That is more even than were lost at Consett. Male unemployment in the Eston area is already 26 per cent. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan)-I informed him that I might refer to this, but I understand that he cannot be present—should certainly know the extent of the unemployment problem in our area. Indeed, it is even worse in some of the ironstone mining settlements of East Cleveland in his constituency. It is no wonder that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is rumoured to be looking for a safer seat. I do not blame him for recognising that discretion may be the better part of valour in that respect, but I condemn him for his failure to speak up in defence of the people whom he represents rather than in defence of the Prime Minister whom he serves.

Mr. Bernard Conlon: We have been debating this matter for as long as I can remember. The difference is that in the past Members representing the northern region urged that industrial development should be transferred to our area from the better-off parts of the country such as the midlands and the south-east. Now, as a result of the policies pursued by the Government, those regions face problems similar to our own.
The effect of those policies is that unemployment in the north has reached alarming proportions. The regional average is nearly 20 per cent., but in parts of the region it is 30 per cent. and even 40 per cent. The northern region has special problems, but the Government seem not to understand that. Unemployment has always been higher than in any other part of mainland Britain. Those special problems require special measures to resolve them. Manufacturing industry is the heart of our region's economy. It has been referred to as the engine of growth. More and more manufacturing jobs must be provided. The area certainly needs a development agency, as the Welsh and the Scots have, so that new jobs can be generated.
We have supreme confidence in the ability and skills of the people of our region. It is incumbent upon the Government and industry to show the same confidence in the region as we have. It is necessary to display to the world the untouched, creative talent that resides in that

region. The Government must stop their ridiculous nonsense of systematically closing, for short term advantage, the various regional offices of Government Departments and transferring the work elsewhere. That reduces our status and gives a wrong impression of the region.
Manufacturing industry is the lifeblood of the region. I am convinced that the Government have lamentably failed to do all they could to secure jobs in this vital area.
The Government have several vital roles to play. The most important is to direct work over which they have control. An example is defence. They must also influence the policy decisions of the agencies over which they have less control—the nationalised industries. The Government have a part to play, too, in obliging private firms to place contracts in our region by the discerning allocation of financial support.
The determination to have the replacement for the Atlantic Conveyor built on Tyneside was warmly welcomed. That decision is providing many jobs. It is ironic that the deck equipment for that ship shall, in all probability, be built overseas. It is not too late to retrieve this contract. Every effort must be made to persuade Cunard or British Shipbuilders to place the contract for this equipment with a British firm, preferably NEI in Gateshead.
A more alarming case relates to another firm within my constituency. Last year the Home Office required a radio antenna which, in spite of my protestations, was ordered from an American company. The work could equally well have been done by my constituent firm Marconi, but it went overseas. The reason advanced to me by the Home Secretary at the time was that it was cheaper to do it that way. I said then, and I do so again, that that is a spurious argument because it takes no account of the cost of keeping skilled engineers on the dole.
Another case concerns the same firm, but this time the culprit was the Ministry of Defence. The contract to which I am now referring is worth three times that required by the Home Office. The Prime Minister became involved in the matter and sympathetic noises were made by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. I was confident that common sense would prevail and that the work would be carried out by those highly skilled engineers in Gateshead. Alas, it was not to be. Again, the work is to be done by an American firm. We in this country must really be a soft touch. Can one imagine the French or the Germans treating their indigenous industries in such a daft way?
The tragedy of this particular episode is that, unlike the incident with the Home Office, the MOD could not argue on the basis of price differentials for I am reliably assured that the two were very much alike. The well worn and unquantifiable scenario of "technical performance" has been trotted out as the reason for preferring the American product. How does the Ministry of Defence know that this foreign equipment is technically superior unless it gives an order to the British firm to test its ability to comply with these rigid specifications? I do not know what Marconi—a company of worldwide repute—must do to prove its capacity to produce this type of antenna.
We are not just troubled about the loss of these orders. The Gateshead factory is one of the few high technology plants in the north-east, and if it goes under through lack of governmental support the whole region will be that much the poorer.
Another aspect of this saga, probably the most important, is that if the Government do not have the confidence to place their work here, what confidence can potential overseas customers be expected to have? These two disastrous decisions may well have determined the future prospects of this high technology industry.
If the cable-laying ship for the CEGB could have been built in the north-east rather than in South Korea, and if the antennae for the Home Office and Ministry of Defence could have been produced by Marconi, a substantial reduction in the level of unemployment on Tyneside could have been achieved.
If I accuse the Government of deliberately creating unemployment, I might be charged with going a bit too far. However, there are undoubtedly Ministers both inside and outside the Cabinet proclaiming the virtues of high unemployment as a tool to castrate a virile trade union movement. Whichever way it is, my indictment of the Government is that they are useless, incompetent and incapable of taking even the most elementary steps to reduce the scourge that is causing such havoc to millions who are unemployed.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: It is difficult in the few minutes available to me to make a balanced speech. The Minister of State was not present when my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) spoke. I shall therefore repeat my hon. Friend's words for his benefit. I heard the Minister's first speech in the debate on the east midlands, and his speech in this debate was an exact replica. The only trend in both was his complete lack of remorse, concern and thought for the people who have been made unemployed as a result of the Government's policies.
It is not good enough for the Minister to bandy around figures of what this or that Government did. Instead, he should be concerned about the one in four people in my constituency who are unemployed, because they are losing all hope of obtaining a job ever again. Those are the people whom the Minister should consider, and he should have made some remarks about them.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the region should look after itself. It had new industry in the post-war period. When I went to Sunderland, there were two large Thorn factories and a large Plessey factory, all of them involved in modern technology. They have long since gone, because the big business of private enterprise decided not to relocate their head offices and closed down their advance factories in the northern region.
The north-east used to be the centre for tailoring. Jackson was taken over by Burtons, but today not one Jackson factory remains open in the northern region. That is our indictment of the private sector for what it has done to the area.
It is all very well for the Minister to complain about the nationalised industries and how they operate, but by and large the nationalised industries have done a first class job in the northern region. If British Shipbuilders were given half a chance, it could do better. It is a disgrace that the order for the cable-laying ship is going to Korea. The Japanese do not have their ships built overseas. All their ships are built in Japan. No Japanese-owned ship is built anywhere except in Japan. It is time that this country and this Government started to take in their own washing. That is long overdue.
I want to make three quick points. They involve a price, because I do not want the hon. Gentleman to say that I am not prepared to pay the price. If a straw poll were taken throughout the country about what people would rather do—pay a little more in taxation or have jobs—I know what the answer would be. Some of that taxation could be used, for example, to stop the cable-laying ship being built overseas in Korea. It could be built here. The Government could also electrify the east coast main line, and show some confidence in the region. That has been asked for by Sir Peter Parker as recently as two days ago. Those are positive steps that could be taken, and the private sector would thank the Minister for them, bearing in mind the jobs that would be provided in the electrical industry.
When one talks about pouring in money, it is no good saying "We did X, Y", and so on. My constituents want to know where the money is being spent. Instead of the Minister who is responsible for local government filching money from the local government coffers, it would be far better if developing industry money were given to the local authorities to create jobs. Local government would do a much better job than Whitehall, because Whitehall does not know best in this respect.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Mr. MacGregor.

Mr. Don Dixon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a Supply day for the Opposition, and I see no reason why Members who wish to raise constituency matters should give way to the Minister if we are to hear the same insults that the Minister of State handed out to the people of the northern region and to the Members of Parliament who represent that region It is an absolute disgrace the way the Minister—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that the hon. Gentleman is disappointed that he has not been able to speak in this debate, and that applies to a number of hon. Members on both sides. [Interruption.] Order. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that he must not criticise the decision of the Chair.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. According to the motion on the Order Paper, we have been discussing the northern region. A visitor in the Strangers Gallery—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—any visitor in the Strangers Gallery who has listened to the debate would think that we had been discussing the north-east. The whole of Cumbria is in the northern region, yet not one Member from Cumbria has been called. I take that as a slight not only on the Members concerned but on Cumbrians.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the House should now listen to the Minister's reply. Mr. MacGregor.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John MacGregor): May I say at the outset that Government Members took considerably less time in the debate than Opposition Members because this, is an Opposition day, and it is hardly our fault that only three hours have been allocated to this debate. The House is entitled to a reply. I am afraid that it will have to he brief, and I shall be unable to take up all the issues that have been raised by hon. Members because of the shortness of time.
I shall make only four points. First the underlying reasons for the northern region's difficulties have been


well rehearsed in this debate and many times before. I do not intend to go over them. I want to make it clear to Opposition Members that I and my right hon. Friend deeply share the concern of all hon. Members about the situation in the northern region. We do not underestimate the problem. It is particularly deep seated, and has been deep seated for a long time. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) put it particularly well when he said that reliance on the wrong industries—by that I mean the wrong industries for the future—will mean that it will take a long time to pull the economy round. There is no lack of compassion or action. Where I differ from the Opposition is in the perception of the scale of what is being done and the way in which they approach the problem.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown) asked for positive discrimination in favour of the north. There is positive discrimination in favour of the north in two ways—regional policy and assisted area status. The hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand), who is always very fair on such matters, said that in real terms there has been some reduction in regional expenditure. He must understand that, in the changes in regional areas, the northern region benefits enormously because so much more of regional policy is concentrated on the northern region. It benefits both in real terms and in comparison with other parts of the country. The hon. Gentleman referred to the suspension of industrial development certificates, but he must know that they were not operated under his Government, so there is no real change. Indeed, 97 per cent. of the north-east's working population remains in assisted areas when there has been a substantial reduction elsewhere, and 78 per cent. is in the special development areas. Most of the region is eligible for aid from the European regional development fund.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will the Minister turn his attention to the problems of the northern region and not those of the north-east?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order.

Mr. MacGregor: I am attempting to reply to all the points made by those hon. Members who have spoken in the debate.
Furthermore, there are three enterprise zones in the region. Another area of positive discrimination is in the scale of expenditure because the region is easily one of the biggest beneficiaries of the regional programme.
Since 1979 more than £1,000 million of public money has been invested in the region on infrastructure. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) said about the improvement in communications there compared with many other parts of the country.
Under the Government the north-east has benefited, under general schemes of assistance, from—and it is a minimum—£1,730 million of direct and indirect expenditure, including money from the EC. That is equivalent to at least £1,440 per head of the working population. The figure is even higher if account is taken of assistance given to British Shipbuilders and BSC. It excludes all the MSC expenditure and a huge range of other Government expenditure which comes to the

northern region through local government and in other ways. That is not only significant but it is per capita much higher than that for most other regions.
That demonstrates that there is positive discrimination, but it also shows that, under this and the Labour Government, throwing taxpayers' money at the problem is not by any means the answer. [Interruption.] There is much more money being directed to the northern region. We are undoubtedly doing it but it is not by any means the whole answer. My hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) made a good point in that respect on expenditure on education.
That leads me to my third point which was raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West and by my hon. Friends the Members for Tynemouth and Ripon, and that is the lack of indigenous entrepreneurs and go-ahead managers in the region. It is a significant and interesting point which needs much more attention than we have been able to give it today. I link with that the problem of small businesses which I have studied with great care, visiting the northern region a lot, including the Durham university business school and the small firms to do so.
I agree that there is an immense amount of activity in the northern region to help existing small businesses and to generate new ones. In many respects the problem is that there has not been a long tradition of such entrepreneurship, and one of the reasons why there has been a small take-up of the loan guarantee scheme which we would like to see much greater than it is. That depends on the entrepreneurs. The same is also true of several other schemes where I would like to see a much greater take-up.
I agree with the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam) that there is a significant number of thrusting and successful concerns active in important areas of high technology in the north-east. However, it is disappointing that there are not enough and we would like to see a much greater take-up in areas of high technology—the technological products and processes scheme—where there is a significant amount of money available for the demand. I wish that I could say much more about that subject because it is an important part of the solution to this deep-seated problem.
The Opposition's reaction to the NECCA report has been revealing. I agree with what the hon. Member for Gateshead, West said about that. It showed a shortage of constructive solutions and that the county councils were selling the regions short in exactly the same way as many Labour Members have done by calling it an industrial desert. That is not the way to solve the problem, and that is why we reject their solution.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 298.

Division No. 63]
[10 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)


Adams, Allen
Bidwell, Sydney


Allaun, Frank
Booth, Rt Hon Albert


Alton, David
Boothroyd, Miss Betty


Anderson, Donald
Bradley, Tom


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)
Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Buchan, Norman


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Callaghan, Rt Hon J.


Beith, A. J.
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Campbell, Ian






Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Janner, Hon Greville


Cartwright, John
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
John, Brynmor


Clarke, Thomas (C'b'dge, A'rie)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Conlan, Bernard
Kinnock, Neil


Cook, Robin F.
Lambie, David


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Lamond, James


Crowther, Stan
Leadbitter, Ted


Cryer, Bob
Leighton, Ronald


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lestor, Miss Joan


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Dalyell, Tam
Litherland, Robert


Davidson, Arthur
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
McCartney, Hugh


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
McElhone, Mrs Helen


Deakins, Eric
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McKelvey, William


Dewar, Donald
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Dixon, Donald
McMahon, Andrew


Dobson, Frank
McNally, Thomas


Dormand, Jack
McNamara, Kevin


Dubs, Alfred
McTaggart, Robert


Duffy, A. E. P.
McWilliam, John


Dunnett, Jack
Marks, Kenneth


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)


Eadie, Alex
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Eastham, Ken
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Maxton, John


English, Michael
Maynard, Miss Joan


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Meacher, Michael


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Mikardo, Ian


Evans, John (Newton)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Faulds, Andrew
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Field, Frank
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Fitch, Alan
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Ford, Ben
Morton, George


Forrester, John
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Foster, Derek
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Newens, Stanley


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Freud, Clement
Ogden, Eric


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
O'Halloran, Michael


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
O'Neill, Martin


George, Bruce
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Golding, John
Palmer, Arthur


Gourlay, Harry
Park, George


Graham, Ted
Parker, John


Grant, John (Islington C)
Parry, Robert


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Pavitt, Laurie


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Pendry, Tom


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Pitt, William Henry


Hardy, Peter
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Prescott, John


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Race, Reg


Haynes, Frank
Radice, Giles


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Heffer, Eric S.
Richardson, Jo


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Home Robertson, John
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Homewood, William
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Horam, John
Robertson, George


Howell, Rt Hon D,
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Howells, Geraint
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Hoyle, Douglas
Rooker, J. W.


Huckfield, Les
Roper, John





Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Tilley, John


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Tinn, James


Rowlands, Ted
Torney, Tom


Ryman, John
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Sever, John
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Sheerman, Barry
Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Wardell, Gareth


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Watkins, David


Short, Mrs Renée
Weetch, Ken


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Wellbeloved, James


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Welsh, Michael


Silverman, Julius
White, Frank R.


Skinner, Dennis
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Whitehead, Phillip


Snape, Peter
Whitlock, William


Soley, Clive
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)


Stallard, A. W.
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)


Steel, Rt Hon David
Winnick, David


Stoddart, David
Woodall, Alec


Stott, Roger
Woolmer, Kenneth


Strang, Gavin
Wright, Sheila


Straw, Jack
Young, David (Bolton E)


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley



Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Mr. Allen McKay and


Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Mr. Harry Cowans.


Thorne, Stan (Preston South)



NOES


Adley, Robert
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul


Aitken, Jonathan
Chapman, Sydney


Alexander, Richard
Churchill, W. S.


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Ancram, Michael
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Arnold, Tom
Clegg, Sir Walter


Aspinwall, Jack
Cockeram, Eric


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)
Colvin, Michael


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Cope, John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Corrie, John


Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)
Costain, Sir Albert


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Cranborne, Viscount


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Critchley, Julian


Bendall, Vivian
Crouch, David


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Dorrell, Stephen


Best, Keith
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dover, Denshore


Biffen, Rt Hon John
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Blackburn, John
Durant, Tony


Body, Richard
Dykes, Hugh


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Eggar, Tim


Bowden, Andrew
Elliott, Sir William


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Emery, Sir Peter


Braine, Sir Bernard
Eyre, Reginald


Bright, Graham
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Brinton, Tim
Fairgrieve, Sir Russell


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Brooke, Hon Peter
Farr, John


Brotherton, Michael
Fell, Sir Anthony


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Browne, John (Winchester)
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Buck, Antony
Fookes, Miss Janet


Budgen, Nick
Forman, Nigel


Bulmer, Esmond
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Burden, Sir Frederick
Fox, Marcus


Butcher, John
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Butler, Hon Adam
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Fry, Peter


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Gardner, Sir Edward


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Garel-Jones, Tristan






Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Lee, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Le Marchant, Spencer


Gorst, John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Gow, Ian
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Grant, Sir Anthony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Greenway, Harry
Loveridge, John


Grieve, Percy
Luce, Richard


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Lyell, Nicholas


Grist, Ian
McCrindle, Robert


Grylls, Michael
Macfarlane, Neil


Hamilton, Hon A.
MacGregor, John


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Hannam, John
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Haselhurst, Alan
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Hastings, Stephen
Madel, David


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Major, John


Hawksley, Warren
Marland, Paul


Hayhoe, Barney
Marlow, Antony


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Heddle, John
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Henderson, Barry
Mates, Michael


Hicks, Robert
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Mawby, Ray


Hill, James
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hooson, Tom
Mayhew, Patrick


Hordern, Peter
Mellor, David


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Miscampbell, Norman


Irvine, RtHon Bryant Godman
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Moate, Roger


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Monro, Sir Hector


Jessel, Toby
Montgomery, Fergus


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Moore, John


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Mudd, David


Kimball, Sir Marcus
Murphy, Christopher


King, Rt Hon Tom
Myles, David


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Neale, Gerrard


Knight, Mrs Jill
Needham, Richard


Knox, David
Nelson, Anthony


Lamont, Norman
Neubert, Michael


Lang, Ian
Normanton, Tom


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Onslow, Cranley


Latham, Michael
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Lawrence, Ivan
Page, John (Harrow, West)





Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Stanley, John


Patten, John (Oxford)
Steen, Anthony


Pattie, Geoffrey
Stevens, Martin


Pawsey, James
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Percival, Sir Ian
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Stokes, John


Pink, R. Bonner
Stradling Thomas, J.


Pollock, Alexander
Tapsell, Peter


Porter, Barry
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Temple-Morris, Peter


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Prior, Rt Hon James
Thompson, Donald


Proctor, K. Harvey
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thornton, Malcolm


Rathbone, Tim
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Trippier, David


Renton, Tim
Trotter, Neville


Rhodes James, Robert
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Waddington, David


Rifkind, Malcolm
Wakeham, John


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Waldegrave, Hon William


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Walker, B. (Perth)


Rossi, Hugh
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Rost, Peter
Wall, Sir Patrick


Royle, Sir Anthony
Waller, Gary


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Walters, Dennis


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Ward, John


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Warren, Kenneth


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Watson, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wells, Bowen


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Shepherd, Richard
Wheeler, John


Shersby, Michael
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Silvester, Fred
Whitney, Raymond


Sims, Roger
Wickenden, Keith


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wilkinson, John


Smith, Dudley
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Winterton, Nicholas


Speed, Keith
Wolfson, Mark


Speller, Tony
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Spence, John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)



Sproat, Iain
Tellers for the Noes:


Squire, Robin
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Stainton, Keith
Mr. Carol Mather.

Question accordingly negatived.

Education (Assisted Places)

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I beg to move,
That the draft Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.
Three years ago I and my hon. Friends spent many hours locked in debate with Opposition Members. We sought means of widening parental choice in education, but they opposed it, preferring as always to tilt the balance away from individual parents towards state regulation. I am glad to say that we prevailed and were able to place the Education Act 1980 on the statute book, thereby tilting the balance some of the way back towards parents.
One of the measures that we included in that Act was the assisted places scheme. I wish to remind the House of the purpose of the scheme. It is to give able children from less well-off families the opportunity of attending good independent schools and to widen the educational opportunities available to children from financially less well-off homes by helping with the cost of tuition fees where parents cannot afford the full or the partial cost.
More than 8,500 children are now benefiting from the scheme in England alone. That number will grow. Each new intake to the 220 schools in this scheme will increase the number of pupils being assisted. In a few years' time, when the schools have assisted pupils in each year group, about 30,000 children will be benefiting. Set against the total of nearly 4 million secondary school pupils, that is only a small number—less than 1 one per cent.—but it means that 30,000 more boys and girls whose parents lack the power of the purse will be at the school of their parents' choice than would have been the case if Opposition Members had their way.
Tonight we are debating various amendments to the regulations that govern the detailed operation of the assisted places scheme. These are mainly in preparation for this coming September's intake, which is already being selected by the schools in this scheme. Before describing those amendments, I shall first report the figures for the current school year.
In England it appears that, as in the first year of the scheme, schools again received on average about four applications for each of the assisted places offered for 11 to 13-year-olds. Again, however, there was a disappointingly low number of applications for assisted sixth form places. From among these applicants the schools in the scheme selected the pupils whom they considered would most benefit from the education that they offered and who satisfied the eligibility criteria of the scheme in respect of age, residence and income.

Mr. Peter Hardy: rose—

Dr. Boyson: No, I shall not give way. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have explained the scheme, but he still does not know about it and I do not wish to keep him in ignorance any longer. Otherwise, I should be depriving him and I do not like depriving hon. Members.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: The Minister should take his hands out of his pockets.

Dr. Boyson: I shall do so and I trust that all Labour Members will do the same when they speak.
In September 1982, 4,440 pupils took up assisted places at schools in England. Of these 3,824 were aged

between 11 and 14, filling about 85 per cent. of the places available for those age groups. The remaining 616 took up almost two thirds of the assisted sixth form places on offer. That new intake increased the total number of pupils holding assisted places to 8,616.
Perhaps of more interest than these overall numbers is information of the sort of pupils that are filling the assisted places. As in the first year of the scheme—I hope hon. Members on both sides of the House are listening carefully to this—two thirds of the new intake of assisted pupils have spent at least the two previous years in maintained schools. The assisted places scheme does not benefit pupils whose parents can well afford to pay tuition from their own resources. It is to the advantage of pupils who could not otherwise get there because their parents could not pay the fee.

Mr. Hardy: rose—

Dr. Boyson: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman must wait. I know that he is anxious to speak, but he must hear these figures. Once he knows the figures I shall give way to him. At the moment he is rising in ignorance and we must not have that.
The fact is well supported by the statistics that we collect about the relevant incomes of assisted pupils.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: The Under-Secretary has had a good dinner.

Dr. Boyson: I hope the hon. Gentleman has also had a good dinner. We in the Conservative party want the good life for all. We want good schools for all. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me about that. Whenever he wishes to cross the floor I shall be delighted to see him on this side.

Mr. Rooker: The Minister should take his hand out of his pocket.

Dr. Boyson: I have put my left hand in my pocket which is even more dangerous, but I have now removed it.—[interruption.]
Hon. Members must listen to this. In the 1982 intake, about four out of 10 new assisted pupils came from families whose family income was below two thirds of the average family income in this country. Another one third—

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: How many?

Dr. Boyson: The figure is 5,726. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked me. He is plainly being won over by my arguments. Another one third come from homes whose income is less that the average family income. Between 3 and 4 per cent. only come from families whose income is 50 per cent. more than the average. It means that they probably have six or seven children. If all families had the same we should have no problem with falling rolls. Some members of the Labour party have tried to persuade the country that the assisted places scheme will benefit mainly the well-off. As is only too frequently the case, the rhetoric of Opposition Members is not based on fact. We specifically designed the scheme to benefit those with low incomes and, as the statistics show clearly, it is indeed boys and girls from low income families who are taking up the overwhelming majority of assisted places. In case any Opposition Member does not understand, I shall spell out in simple human terms the type of people who are entering the assisted places scheme. If single parents,


manual workers, shop assistants, the unemployed and others with low incomes have able children whom they want to send to academically good independent schools they now have the chance for the first time in many years to do so.

Mr. Kinnock: rose—

Dr. Boyson: I shall give way when I have finished this part.

Mr. Whitehead: The Minister has not given way yet.

Dr. Boyson: No, I have not given way. The hon. Gentleman is very observant. He is at least awake on this occasion, which is very good.
The assisted places scheme exists to widen educational choice for just those parents, and it is achieving that objective successfully. The press has carried many stories about assisted pupils from less advantageous backgrounds, and I shall mention a few typical examples.

Mr. Kinnock: rose—

Dr. Boyson: I shall give way when I have finished this. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not want to hear about the children who are going on this scheme, but he will have to listen if he stays in the Chamber.
One example is Mark, a West Indian boy from Lichfield who gained an assisted place in 1981. His single parent mother is a shop assistant and does not have to pay anything towards his fees.—[Interruption] I thought that for once the Labour party would approve of such opportunities. Perhaps, we are dealing with a different Labour party now and one which does not want this sort of thing. I suggest that hon. Gentlemen talk to that mother about the opportunities being given to her children. Her child is having an opportunity that he would not have otherwise.
Martin from Wolverhampton is benefiting also. His father, a bus driver, wishes some of his other six children could have had the same opportunity. This year Birkenhead high school gave assisted places to, among others, the daughters of a railway signalman, a machine tool setter and a bus driver.

Mr. Tom McNally: What about a grocer's daughter from Grantham?

Dr. Boyson: In Leeds, the parents of assisted pupils include a hairdresser, a kitchen supervisor and a coal miner. Opposition Members are not allowed to laugh at coal miners. They are part of the aristrocracy and there is silence about that.

Mr. Whitehead: rose—

Mr. Kinnock: As the son of a coal miner—

Dr. Boyson: The hon. Gentleman can by all means come up from the pit in a few minutes. King Edward's school at Birmingham, one of the most distinguished schools in the country, took 47 new pupils in the assisted places scheme. One of those pupils is a West Indian and ten are Indians. Again, I do not see how Opposition Members can object to that if they want a unified society.

Mr. Hardy: rose—

Dr. Boyson: I shall give way when I finish the paragraph, and not until then. Hon. Members may not like it, but they will have to listen.
Seven out of 21 girls taken into the Talbot Heath school this year came from one-parent families. If that is not where help should be given, I do not know where help should be given. At Highgate school in London—

Mr. Frank Dobson: rose—

Dr. Boyson: The hon. Gentleman should listen, because that is part of his constituency. Many people in his constituency may want to apply when they know what it going on. It may not threaten him at the next general election, but I should welcome it if it did. We shall wait and see, and I shall be here to see.
Six of the eight entrants this year at Highgate school in London, another distinguished school, came from single-parent families, two of which were on supplementary benefit. Another girls' school has taken five out of seven of its intake from single-parent families.

Mr. Hardy: In the first or second sentence of his speech the Minister spoke of "a scheme to assist the able child." Some time ago I gave to the Minister an example from my constituency of a boy from a perfectly respectable home but who was certainly not of marked ability. He was in the middle of the ability group in his year. The Minister, as a former head master, will understand that I have looked at the matter with the same care that he may have been qualified to exercise himself. In replying to me on that case, the Minister having spoken of "ability" tonight said that ability had no bearing on the matter. Having said that, and bearing in mind the inconsistency which has followed everything he has said since then, does he not agree that the one clear assumption that the education world is entitled to make about his scheme is that it is a means of supporting the private sector of education at a time when the bulge has fallen very low?

Dr. Boyson: I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. I should like to see the letter that I wrote then. As an honest man, I should like to see it. The hon. Gentleman must send me a copy tomorrow. We have made it clear from the beginning that this was an assisted places scheme for able children—

Mr. Hardy: The Minister denied that.

Dr. Boyson: I am not denying it at all. Has the hon. Gentleman brought the letter with him? I should like to see the letter.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The Minister should have read it before he signed it.

Dr. Boyson: I have said time and again in the country, in Committee and in the House—and if once I did not say it I must be forgiven for it, but I want to see the letter first to see whether there is anything to be forgiven for—that the assisted places scheme is a scholarship scheme for able children irrespective of background—indeed, from the poorest background. It enables them to go to academically able schools to achieve what they will not achieve at other schools in this country. That is a ladder of social and economic opportunity about which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree. I must take the hon. Gentleman further on this point because I can see a sign of salvation in what he is saying—a mere glint at the present time. If the hon. Gentleman wants a scheme—not just the able scholarship scheme for going into able academic schools—for all children, he must join us to see what can


be done with the education voucher. The education voucher would open such opportunities to all children. If the hon. Gentleman prefers the education voucher, that is an interesting point.

Mr. Hardy: The point that I made in my letter to the Department was that the child was of only average, if that much, ability. He was being removed from an extremely good secondary school in the state sector to an assisted place in the private sector. The only explanation that I can find is that that is an example of the snobbery that is shown by the Government Front Bench.

Dr. Boyson: I am prepared to examine the correspondence, but I can say now that we believe in parental choice. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that it was probably the parents' choice to move that child to another school.

Mr. Kinnock: Perhaps I can assist the Under-Secretary, as I am always anxious to do, by asking him one question, without the benefit of correspondence. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) asked a perceptive and intelligent question. Will the Minister define, on the basis of his experience as a Minister and a head teacher, the word "able" in the context in which he has used it repeatedly?

Dr. Boyson: It is very interesting to get into a philosophical argument at this time of night. As I said that I have argued this matter for a long time, I am prepared to answer the hon. Gentleman now. [Interruption.] I shall answer the hon. Gentleman if he will listen forward instead of to his left. The able child is one likely to obtain high grades in three A-levels.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Why does the Minister believe that those children cannot achieve precisely those results in what he described as ordinary schools?

Dr. Boyson: The hon. Gentleman cannot have seen the results of all state schools. There was much opposition from the Labour party to our proposal to publish results, because they wished to have secrecy and not to allow parents to know the results of their childrens' schools. No wonder that Labour Members are shouting tonight. There is no truth on their side. Many state schools do well academically, but many do not, especially in the inner cities where the opportunities for working class children are lower than they have been for 60 years.

Mr. Kinnock: rose—

Dr. Boyson: No, I must continue.

Mr. Kinnock: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The Minister is apparently not giving way.

Mr. Cryer: No, but he has made a very serious comment.

Dr. Boyson: The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) will have the opportunity to make a speech later, when he can discuss this matter as much as he wishes. Now, having won the argument on this side, let us move on.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Minister give way?

Dr. Boyson: No.

Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would be directly contradictory—

Dr. Boyson: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am taking a point of order from the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock).

Mr. Kinnock: I commiserate with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, having to deal with ignoramuses on the Government Front Bench. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] It would be entirely contradictory to the traditions and, more important, to the current interest of the House if a Minister could say, "Having won the argument", when he has not made an effort of any description, infantile or inadequate though it may be, to respond to any argument. The essence of this place is argument. When Ministers or hon. Members make no effort to respond, they have no right to say that they have responded to the argument.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not really a point of order for me.

Mr. Kinnock: It is a matter of integrity.

Dr. Boyson: I have always wondered why, when people do not do well in an argument, they make emotional statements.
As we agreed during the passage of the Education Act 1980, these regulations have been laid in draft and require the full approval of this House and the other place before they can be made. The 1980 Act also requires my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consult a body representative of the schools in the scheme before laying draft regulations. The independent schools joint council was consulted, and I am pleased to report that it welcomed the amendments.
I shall describe each of the amendments, and if hon. Members wish to raise detailed queries during the debate, I shall attempt to answer them at the end.
There are two principal amendments and three small technical ones. The first substantive amendment is in draft regulation 3 which will abolish local authorities' power of veto on transfers to assisted sixth form places. Hon. Members will recall that in the equivalent debate last year, I promised that we would closely monitor the decisions taken by local authorities on applications by pupils to transfer from maintained schools to assisted sixth form places. The Department has made a survey of those decisions.
Of the 96 local education authorities in England, 89 responded. Six reported that they had given blanket approval for pupils who wished to transfer to assisted sixth form places at certain local independent schools, but did not know how many pupils had taken up those places. Fifty authorities reported that they had received no transfer applications in 1982. The remaining 33 authorities reported receiving 73 applications of which they approved 43 and rejected 30.
I found the returns fascinating. Those hon. Members who have long memories or who have done their homework for the debate will remember that when we were planning the scheme, local education authorities were worried that there would be wholesale transfers to assisted sixth form places and that some of their maintained sixth forms would be rendered unviable. Many authorities sincerely held that view. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle),


whom I am pleased to see here tonight, properly decided to meet that concern by giving authorities the power of veto over transfers from maintained schools to assisted places at sixth form level. We all know that a few authorities—because, like hon. Opposition Members, they dislike the scheme in principle—have used the veto for purposes other than those for which it was intended. That was why we set up the monitoring exercise. [HON. MEMBERS:"Name one."] I can name north and south Tyneside and Rochdale. If hon. Members want me to go on for another 10 minutes I shall give a list of about 15. I shall not do so, however, as other hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Minister give way?

Dr. Boyson: No. Above all else, the survey showed that local authorities' fears about wholesale transfers were entirely unfounded.

Mr. Peter Rost: Will my hon. Friend confirm that his amendments will help my constituent, Charlotte MacWhirter, who was arbitrarily and unjustifiably denied an assisted place, although she was accepted at Repton school, and wanted to take four subjects at A-level, on the ridiculous grounds that her subjects were an unusual combination? Will the regulations now help people who are so ridiculously persecuted by Derbyshire county council which has abused its powers and is not fit to be an education authority in power?

Dr. Boyson: A section 68 notice has gone out from my right hon. Friend in connection with that case. It is being considered. If the order is changed as proposed, such a case will never occur again. If a parent wishes a child to go to a school and the school agrees, the transfer could take place without the need for approval by the local education authority.

Mr. Whitehead: rose—

Mr. Rost: What would the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) do to help that girl?

Mr. Whitehead: Nothing. Does the Minister accept that Charlotte MacWhirter—I have no animus against her—changed her A-level subjects once she got to Repton school? That raises a fear among local authorities that, once the veto has been done away with, many people will go to these schools when they could take equivalent courses in their state schools. Does the Minister accept that in Derbyshire, many headmasters are expressing the severe worry that their sixth forms will be filleted by public schools that are touting for custom in this way?

Dr. Boyson: I shall give a little more information about the case. Charlotte MacWhirter applied for an assisted place at Repton school to study A-levels in physics, chemistry, economics or biology and music. The application was turned down because Derbyshire education authority said that the combination was unusual. There is no right for a local authority to turn down an A-level combination as unusual. What has happened since does not detract from that. The decision by the Department has to be made upon her request for those subjects at that time supported by the school and by the parents. What has happened since is a different matter that will have to be

examined. A section 68 notice was issued because of the rejection by the Derbyshire authority on the grounds that the choice of subject was unusual. I do not believe that the local education authority should make that decision against a school and the parents.

Mr. Whitehead: Would it therefore be acceptable if a child, having opted to take Swahili at a public school, changed to English on arriving there?

Dr. Boyson: I am always interested to hear hon. Members claim to state what I have been saying. I did not say that. The decision on subjects was made. A section 68 notice was issued. It is obviously not the intention of anyone in or out of Government to agree that someone accepted by a school should immediately change subjects. What the hon. Gentleman says is, to an extent, a smokescreen. Does the hon. Gentleman maintain that the authority was right to issue its rejection when the school stated that it was a practicable combination as did the school from which she was coming?

Mr. Harry Greenway: The extraordinary remarks of Opposition Members show a terribly inflexible attitude towards education. If they had any experience—I say this with respect—they would know that all pupils must be free to change their options. Sometimes they change them within a year of taking an A-level examination. [Interruption.] I am not saying that this is what the Minister stated. That is not the issue. I am dealing with the totally inflexible attitude of Opposition Members and their complete misunderstanding of how education works at sixth form or any other level.

Dr. Boyson: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. Few sixth form students in my experience have not changed subjects at some stage of their sixth form course—from a major to a minor, from a pure and applied, to a separate and combined. I took two extra subjects. Opposition Members probably took them out at that stage.
I wish to make a point about the veto. As only 70 pupils transferred from the state system into the sixth form of independent schools at that stage, it would seem that there was no requirement for a veto. Similarly, it has been policy, although it is not contained in the regulations, that no independent school could take more than five pupils at sixth form level. With only 220 schools having accepted the assisted places scheme, this means no more than about 1,000 pupils overall. I accept that we do not want independent schools bleeding the state system of their sixth forms. But the bleeding has been to the extent of only 70 pupils in all that period of time. The veto has been used by some authorities unfairly.
There has been no breaking of our word. We stated that we would see whether the veto was abused. The veto has been abused. If we had not done this, we would have broken our word. We mean to keep our word. Whatever the Opposition may claim, our actions fall within the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn. If we are attacked for keeping our word, we should be safe at the next general election.

Mr. Beith: I appreciate the point that the Minister tries to make. If all he was trying to do was to stop abuse, why did he not simply re-define the veto so that it could be exercised only if a local authority had reason to believe that the effect on a particular sixth form would be serious?

Dr. Boyson: I take the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I know of his concern for education. It would be very difficult to define. There would have to be a long investigation into whether it could be done, by which time the person would have lost the place in the school. I do not disagree in principle with the idea, but with the manner in which it would work in practice.
The second main amendment is in draft regulation 4(1) and 6. These provide for the uprating of the income scale in assessing the amount of the parents' contribution towards tuition fees. In particular, the income disregard in respect of dependent relatives is increased to £850 and the relevant income threshold below which parents pay nothing towards fees is increased to £5,616.
These increases take account of increases in average earnings in the past year. The House will note that they are relatively small, reflecting the Government's success in controlling inflation. On the proposed scale, families with average incomes will pay about £450 towards fees in 1983–84.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: Will the Minister give way?

Dr. Boyson: Has the hon. Gentleman been present throughout the debate?

Mr. Spriggs: No.

Dr. Boyson: In that case, I shall not give way.
I shall now deal with the technical amendments proposed. First, draft regulation No. 4(2) seeks to simplify the assessment of fee remission in cases where, due to death, separation, divorce or remarriage, there is a change in the parents, as statutorily defined, of pupils with assisted places. This enables account to be taken of significant financial hardship which may arise from such a change.
Draft regulation No. 5 is a consequential change in the existing provision concerning the death of a parent.
Draft regulation No. 7 takes account of amended provisions in the Finance Act 1982 concerning the arrangements for tax relief on mortgage interest payments and the removal from tax of the mobility allowance.
Draft regulation No. 8 contains the final technical amendment. I hope that I carry the Opposition with me on this one. Under this provision, teachers barred from employment in maintained schools on grounds of misconduct will automatically also be barred from teaching at schools in the assisted places scheme. I am glad that the hon. Member for Bedwellty seems to agree with that. It will streamline the administrative procedure, which at present requires the Secretary of State to issue two separate prohibitions.
I have reported to the House on the second year's intake for the assisted places scheme and I have outlined the amending regulations that we consider necessary to carry the scheme forward into a successful third year. The scheme is already proving of great benefit to able children from less well off families throughout the country, and I am sure that it will go from strength to strength. I fear that the Opposition's objections are to that very success and popularity which the scheme has achieved among the lower income families of this country.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: The only virtue of the instrument before us is that it illustrates categorically yet

again the maladjustment of the Government's educational priorities, which was faithfully recorded in the particularly inept contribution of the Under-Secretary of State. His performance generally reaches a much higher standard, but today, perhaps because he knew that he was trying to defend the indefensible, it was not quite up to scratch.
The Under-Secretary of State said that an "able" child who could attend what he described as an "academically distinguished" school was one who was likely to achieve high grades at A-level. That seems an extremely narrow perception of ability. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman's understanding as a teacher—an understanding not generally available to Conservative Members—that, that is not a definition of ability that he would have accepted at any time during his professional career.

Mr. Greenway: What is the hon. Gentleman's definition?

Mr. Kinnock: I shall give that later, but it will certainly exclude the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). Any definition of ability would do that.
The second point that the Under-Secretary offered—

Mr. Greenway: rose—

Mr. Kinnock: I am anxious to make progress.

Mr. Greenway: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) to make inane personal remarks?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Kinnock: In recalling your own distinguished career, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should have thought you would have said, "Go to the back of the class, Harry."
The Under-Secretary said that under section 17 of the Education Act 1980 it was necessary to provide for children who might not otherwise be able to do so to benefit—that is the word in the Act—from independent schools. He said that there are difficulties in inner city schools in the maintained sector. When challenged, it was noticeable to hon. Members on this side of the House, to the profession generally and to parents outside the House—a most important consideration—that he was unable to respond, not through lack of time, to the challenge about the provision in regard to maintained schools.
The Under-Secretary said in his closing remarks that he found it necessary to remove the veto originally sensibly allocated by the former Secretary of State for Education to local education authorities because the doubts and fears had been unfounded. He was prepared to offer again the undertaking that the schools accepting assisted places pupils would not take more than five in a sixth form. Why should we, as reasonable people, accept any undertaking about the assisted places scheme from the Under-Secretary, or any undertaking at all?
We had an undertaking about the veto.

Dr. Boyson: No.

Mr. Kinnock: Of course we had an undertaking. If we did not have an undertaking about the veto, why have we a statutory instrument before the House to overturn that which the hon. Gentleman says does not exist? Of course there was an undertaking. If the Under-Secretary says that there was no undertaking, he is calling his right hon. and


learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) a liar. That is what the Secretary of State said in his press release and in his draft regulation.
There was an undertaking. Why should we accept an undertaking? There was a time less than a year ago when the Department of Education and Science produced a long statement explaining why the voucher scheme was a load of nonsense. The DES said it was absolutely unrealistic. Here we have reports of the Cabinet and the Under-Secretary of State offering to debate the voucher scheme.
We know very well that it is the intention of the Conservative party that if this country has the misfortune to have another Tory Government the voucher scheme will be introduced, with all the division, damage and demoralisation in the schools that will follow from that. Why should we accept any undertakings from people who last year said that the voucher scheme was no good whereas this year it gets the endorsement of the Cabinet? Why should we accept the undertakings of people who two years ago said that the LEAs would have a reasonable veto but who now are introducing a statutory instrument to withdraw that democratic power from the local education authorities? We do not believe a word they say. Nor does the rest of the country.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman is raising points which are removed from the draft regulations. Is not the simplest answer both to him and to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) that a good number of parents do not want to be told by an elitist Member of Parliament that they are snobbish or that they have views with which he disagrees? They do not want education to be run by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), who on a bogus point of order loses his temper because he thinks he is going to lose the argument. Why should not parents have the same right to put into effect their views about education for their children in the same way as the hon. Gentleman wants to put his views into effect for all children?

Mr. Kinnock: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that I lost my temper, he must have had a very gentle upbringing. The objection that he has to elitist Members of Parliament is exactly the objection that people have to section 17 of the Education Act 1980 which in its proposition presumes that such is the inadequacy of the maintained sector for what the Minister called "able pupils" that they can be accommodated only in the private sector of education. That is the essential proposition of the law in section 17 of the 1980 Act.

Mrs. Angela Rumbold: rose—

Mr. Kinnock: I would be glad, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you would communicate to Conservative Members that I shall not be giving way for some considerable time. I want to ensure that my hon. Friends have a chance to chip in.
Our original objection to section 17 was that central to it was the idea that children of a particular ability could be catered for only in the private sector. It was palpable nonsense then, and it is palpable nonsense now.

Mrs. Rumbold: rose—

Mr. Kinnock: It was a deliberate insult to maintained education and, more important, it was the statutory definition of central Tory education philosophy that "bought is best". Indeed, it was a statutory commitment that by cuts, maintained education provision would be undermined and that morale in the maintained system would be undermined by a system of subsidised private places.

Mrs. Rumbold: rose—

Mr. Kinnock: That has been the accumulated product of nearly four years of Tory rule over education.
In their repetitive cries, Conservative Members might try to gainsay what I shall say, but they cannot gainsay the view of Her Majesty's inspectorate, the Royal Society or an assortment of other independent authorities who jointly condemn a Government who, although elected to raise standards of achievement, are conniving at the deterioration of standards by a process of cuts and demoralisation.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kinnock: If I will not give way to someone who may conceivably understand something about education, I shall not be giving way to the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins).
If we want a definition of Tory attitude, we have to look not much further than the words of the former Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Runcorn, a man who commands a certain respect in my bosom. He accomplished everything required of him by the Tory Government, and for his pains he got sacked.
Now in repose, he gives himself to authorship, and, together with Mr. Stuart Sexton, has produced a notebook for the use of Tories so that they can counteract our proposal for the erosion and abolition of private schooling.

Mrs. Rumbold: rose—

Mr. Kinnock: Their definition of the Tory view of the maintained system and private education is perfect. They say that Tories will have to tramp the country saying that if we were to abolish private schooling, including the assisted places scheme, which we shall terminate in the first academic year in which we are elected, it will deprive parents of a basic right; risk political manipulation of monopoly state schools, as if we are not politically manipulated now by the assisted places scheme; and—this is the "beaut"—

Mr. Greenway: The what?

Mr. Kinnock: It is Australian. I thought that the hon. Gentleman represented a constituency with a mixture of ethnic backgrounds, but he betrays that as well as everything else.
The notebook continues:
and cause a certain fall in standards because there would be nothing by which to judge state schools if independent schools were not there".
That is our resentment. Conservative Members have in their constituencies a majority of pupils who use and trust the maintained system, yet those Members constantly tell their constituents "Don't trust the maintained system. Don't judge the maintained system by its own merits, or by the way in which it deals with the requirements of an individual child, nurtures talent, develops interests, or produces skills. Don't do that. Don't judge the maintained


system on the basis of a child's achievement against the almost insurmountable odds of an uncaring background or the misfortunes of environment. Judge that maintained schooling system by the produce, not of that system, but of the independent sector."
There is such a quintessential unfairness and injustice in the way that Conservative Members continually taunt the maintained school system by saying "We will not judge you, measure you, assess you in terms of your own competence, but in terms of the competence of an entirely different schooling system, catering in small classes for children from fortunate backgrounds"—

Mrs. Rumbold: rose—

Mr. Tim Brinton: rose—

Mr. Kinnock: —"with invariably highly motivated parents, even if those parents demonstrate their motivation by signing cheques." That is an insult that we cannot tolerate, and it is crystallised in legislation in the form of the assisted places scheme, which is why we have such undying enmity towards that scheme.

Mrs. Rumbold: rose—

Mr. Brinton: rose—

Mr. Kinnock: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Lady may be exercising, and that may be of benefit to her, but she will not intervene until I say so, and that is not yet. [Interruption.]
We heard again tonight about the voucher system. The Secretary of State is said to be intellectually attracted by that system. That alone would be good enough reason for the rejection of the voucher system. I know his other intellectual attractions, which include the idea of managing the economy by creating millions more unemployed. So intellectual attractions must spawn some suspicion and reluctance in the minds of any sane human being. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary is also in favour of the voucher system. [Interruption.] He is prepared to extend the procedure whereby—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) must contain himself. I am anxious to hear this important debate, and frankly, a running commentary from a sedentary position does not enhance the debate at all.

Mr. Greenway: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member promised to tell me how he defined an able child.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order.

Mr. Kinnock: Ability will not be defined in a voucher system by giving £1,000 or £1,200 a year subsidy to parents who want a cut-price private education for their children. Whatever else that demonstrates about the nature of our society or the Tory attitude to education, it will have nothing to do with ability.
Let us come to ability. This statutory instrument is the Miss MacWhirter testimonial case. Miss MacWhirter's name has been mentioned, and I echo the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) that none of our views here is evidence of any enmity towards her. Whatever she is capable of, we wish her the very best. However, the Secretary of State took it upon himself to introduce this instrument because of the

difficulties and complexities that he encountered with the Derbyshire county council in the case of Miss MacWhirter. Henceforth I shall express no view about that lady, but as the case has been mentioned, and as it is central to the consideration of this legislation, we should reflect on the situation that arose.
Miss MacWhirter wanted to take a combination of subjects at advanced level of the general certification of education. It appeared that there would be some difficulty—but not an impossibility—in accommodating that choice of subjects in the maintained sector in her area. We are told that it was possible for her to take courses, or comparable courses, in a college of further education or in a joint arrangement scheme between two school sixth forms.
We must judge Miss MacWhirter's case in terms of the treatment meted out to others in a comparable situation. If we were to look at section 31 of the 1980 Act we would see that it makes it difficult for youngsters to transfer between local education authorities in order to undertake further education. That is a Government provision. Therefore, it is extraordinary that the Government are here introducing legislation to facilitate the movement of a young pupil out of the maintained sector into the private sector, with subsidy, so that she can undertake an unusual combination of advanced level subjects when a couple of years ago they passed an Act which effectively prohibits the movement of pupils in the maintained sector between local education authorities. We have heard much about freedom and choice from the Government but where is the choice for the people in the maintained sector who want to move between local education authorities in order to take a combination of subjects?

Mr. Rost: rose—

Mrs. Rumbold: rose—

Mr. Kinnock: I shall give way eventually.
It is extraordinary that the Government have expressly avoided awarding educational maintenance allowances to youngsters who want to undertake full-time education after the age of 16. Indeed they have so contrived through their cuts to demolish that rudimentary system of educational maintenance allowances that existed in Britain. Yet, here they are, quite prepared to introduce new legislation to facilitate the provision of a form of educational maintenance allowance to a pupil as long as that pupil moves out—

Mr. Rost: rose—

Mr. Martin Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The device of giving way has been abused so rudely that those hon. Members who want a serious debate will not have the opportunity so to do because Conservative Members are constantly rising.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is in the hands of the hon. Gentleman who is addressing the House. If he does not give way, we must proceed with the debate.

Mr. Kinnock: Admonitions from two head teachers should be acknowledged by all hon. Members.

Mr. Rost: rose—

Mr. Kinnock: I shall give way eventually.
I hope that it will be borne in mind that the educational maintenance allowance, for which Conservative Members


are campaigning, which will be available to Miss MacWhirter as a consequence of this change in the law, is not available to the thousands of other deserving 16, 17 and 18-year-olds whose further education could be facilitated if the Government were prepared to put resources at their disposal.
Miss MacWhirter wanted to do chemistry, physics, economics or biology and music at advanced level. I am very much in favour of people following a general curriculum. Indeed, one of the purposes of the examination and curriculum reform advocated by Labour Members is to allow pupils to achieve just such a choice and breadth in the curriculum. However, here is yet another extraordinary irony. The Government, who want to facilitate Miss MacWhirter in undertaking this collection of advanced levels are the same Government who have so cut back on schooling provision as to endanger the existence of science teaching in many British schools. The National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers published a survey last month which demonstrates that. The Royal Society's report "The Swing from Science in Schools" published a fortnight ago demonstrates that. Her Majesty's inspectors recorded that in primary and secondary schools severe damage is being done to the teaching of science in the maintained schools in Britian because of Government cuts.
Miss MacWhirter wants to take music. I think that is great, and I hope that she does. However, if we look around Britain, at the local education authorities that are being permitted, with the benign neutrality of the Secretary of State, to avoid the general comprehensive provision of music tuition, either instrumental tuition or music in the curriculum, it is an extraordinary irony that the Government are willing to put resources at the disposal of Miss MacWhirter when thousands of children throughout Britain are effectively being deprived of music education.

Mr. Rost: rose—

Mr. Kinnock: She wants to do economics. If she does if effectively and thoroughly, the last thing she will do is to support the Government's view on economic policy or education.

Mr. Rost: The country will note the hon. Gentleman's arrogance with regard to my constituent. Was it right of Derbyshire county council to deprive the daughter of an unemployed constituent of mine of an assisted place purely on the ground that it did not regard her four subjects as anything but unusual? Is that not an extraordinary display of political prejudice which has nothing to do with the educational merits of the case?

Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am very reluctant to intervene, but would you appeal to both Front Benches not to make constant reference to the personal and individual circumstances of children who cannot possibly be advantaged by being described in such detail?

Mr. Kinnock: That is a fair point. Had it not been for the extraordinary, grandiose procedure of introducing a statutory instrument, the young lady could have retained her desirable anonymity. However, the point made by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was

well made. We should have loved to observe it, had it not been for the fact the fight started in a different place. Miss MacWhirter's Member of Parliament, the hon Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), tells us about her father's unemployment. To paraphrase the response of countless Ministers, that matter is best taken up with the Secretary of State for Employment.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East has mentioned Miss MacWhirter and demanded a response. Although I thoroughly object to the assisted places scheme, the Secretary of State had the power under the arrangements established by the right hon. and learned Member for Runcorn and the 1944 Act to serve what he perceived to be—although I do not—Miss MacWhirter's interest without recourse to a supplementary statutory instrument. That still does not explain, excuse or justify the introduction of further supplementary legislation. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East knows that well. Had he not pursued the matter, he could have maintained Miss MacWhirter's desirable anonymity.
There are no friends for the proposition to remove the veto for local education authorities. The body representing those interested in gifted children is critical of it. Only the Freedom Association appears to sustain it. There is a contradiction in the Government's policy of seeking to ensure that 60 per cent. of assisted places are awarded to children from maintained schools. Indeed, 87 per cent. of those aged 16-plus who take up assisted places come from private schools and only 13 per cent. come from maintained schools. I do not complain about that, but it is an example of the Government's inconsistency and dishonesty. This is another instance of the way in which the Government dictate to local education authorities.
We have heard the Conservative party's rhetoric on local democracy. In reality, it means penury and subordination for local government. That has been the case in every sphere of local government from transport to housing, social services and education. The subject before us is only the most recent definition of the centralised and authoritarian view of a Government who are willing to use their majority to squash the views of a local education authority that was responding as best it could to the general and individual educational interests of children.
The Under-Secretary of State said that the Government had consulted the Independent Joint Schools Council—a body representative of participating schools—and that the council had indicated that it was content with the amendments. It is just like Barlorak Karmal, the Quisling governor of Afghanistan, saying to the Kremlin, "It will be all right if you invade next Thursday". That is all the authority of that body. Of course it will accept the proposition. Millions of pounds in subsidies and much more status and kudos are being given to private schools by a Government who are determined to undermine maintained schooling and local democracy.
When the Secretary of State says that the worries of the local authorities were unfounded, I am not sure what the response should have been. Is the right hon. Gentleman, having said that, determined to make sure that their worries were well founded, or is it that in the regulations he is simultaneously demonstrating the failure of the scheme, and making a devious attempt to give it new life to suck in yet more youngsters from maintained schools on the false prospectus that they can be cared for properly only in the private sector?
We have before us an inconsistency—which is a euphemism for dishonesty—and a dictatorship over the local authorities that will demoralise the maintained sector of education. The Government also do that with cuts and legislation, but their sins will find them out. I hope that Conservative Members who have the interests of maintained schooling and the welfare of the children in their constituency at heart will join us in voting against the regulations.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I shall be brief because, much as we all adore my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), it is slightly unfortunate that they should have taken 62 minutes of a debate that can last only an hour and a half.
I am the person responsible for introducing the assisted places scheme. I believe that it is working well and as we intended. The Under-Secretary reminded us that, of the 8,500 children who have places in the scheme, two thirds of the families have below the national average income, and about one third are taking a full grant. That gives the lie to the accusation made to me often when I sat on the Government Front Bench that the scheme would be a means of giving support to middle-class people who wanted some assistance with their school fees.
The scheme is providing opportunities for children who would not have had the chance of being educated in these schools. I have never said, as the hon. Member for Bedwellty claimed, that children of a particular ability could be provided for only outside the state system. That has never been my view. The ethos, particularly of the old direct grant school, was that assisted children of ability, should be able to obtain the type of education that they could not have achieved without it. We should remember that education is about opportunities given to the individual child, and the desires of the parent about how the child should be educated. Despite the attack that was made at the time, there is no evidence that the scheme has damaged the state system. Over the past year, I have been to various assisted place schools where I have been involved in prize givings and functions of that nature. Where ever I go, I am told not only of the support given by the schools involved but of the growing support and co-operation of the headmasters of the local state schools in the area, and particularly of the headmasters of primary schools.
The scheme was meant to be, not in opposition to the state scheme but complementary to it. It was meant to give to certain children a greater opportunity to pursue a particular form of academic education that was regrettably not otherwise, particularly in the cities, available to them. The scheme is achieving that aim.
In regulation 3, the Under-Secretary is proposing to change something that I proposed. It is right, as the hon. Member for Bedwellty said, that I agreed at the time of the introduction of the scheme that if at 16 young people wanted to go to an independent school under the assisted places scheme it should be only with the agreement of the local education authority. I did that because I tried to meet head on local education authorities' anxieties that in some way their sixth forms would be creamed off as a result of that proposal.
The figures that we have been given by the Minister show, as I believed they would, that that fear was unjustfied. I made it clear, as the Under-Secretary did last

year, that if I felt that that proposal was being abused by local authorities putting a blanket prohibition on the movement of children at that age, we would remove the prohibition. I assume from what the Minister said tonight that he believes that there is evidence of that abuse and that the local authorities fears were not justified and that as why he has removed the prohibition.

Mr. Whitehead: Is there not now a new position? Might not those fears be justified now that the veto has been abolished?

Mr. Carlisle: I think not, because I think that the figures given show that creaming off does not occur.
I believe that the atmosphere of co-operation with the state schools is, happily, better than it was two years ago. I believe that there is an understanding between heads that they are anxious to do the best for the children in their area. I believe that the movement will be small and that it will be advantageous to the children involved.
I believe strongly that in the end the Secretary of State's responsibility must be to those children in the state system, but I look upon the assisted places scheme as a means of widening the opportunities of those children who would otherwise be within the state system, not because the state system is, of its nature, inferior, but because in certain areas there are schools which can give opportunities that the state system in that area cannot.
I hope sincerely that if there is an opportunity to widen help in this area the Secretary of State will consider doing it by widening the assisted places scheme rather than by looking at the voucher scheme. I believe that would raise problems between the state and the independent sector that I do not believe the assisted places scheme raises.
I welcome what the Minister has said today. I believe that the scheme is working well. I am certainly in no way ashamed of the fact that I first brought it to the Dispatch Box. I believe that it is working to the advantage of many children. I am horrified to hear the hon. Member for Bedwellty yet again declare the Labour patty's determination, if given the chance, to remove the scheme—presumably cut it at once—which would affect the lives and future of those children then in the scheme without regard to the damage it would do to their education.

Mr. Tom McNally: I hope that the Secretary of State listened to the wise words of the right hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) about the voucher scheme, which I endorse fully. I shall be brief because, like the right hon. and learned Member for Runcorn and other hon. Members, I have suffered from a clash of titanic humilities from the Front Benches tonight in the amount of time that they have taken to explain their views.
Where I depart from the views of the right hon. and learned Member for Runcorn is when, like a number of his hon. Friends, he keeps using the word "chance". He talks about having the chance to escape from the maintained sector. It almost gives the game away. They believe that it is second best and that people are willing to buy themselves out. They use all the right words. They talk about the defence of parents' rights, and the rights of individuals, when we know that they are defending the


vested interests of a small proportion of parents and children to buy themselves privilege in the education system.
We have the utter humbug of the Government talking about the rights of local authorities when, not for the first time, and not as the first Department, they are bringing forward legislation that takes away the right of local authorities. That is why, once we are past the bounce and bluster of the Under-Secretary of State, and have listened to the explanation of the right hon. and learned Member for Runcorn, what we have before us tonight is the fact that to get his measure through, the Secretary of State was able, and willing, to pay Danegeld to the Tory Right. Tonight, the Under-Secretary of State is collecting that Danegeld.
The then Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Runcorn, put the original Bill before the House arguing that he would not intervene, that there would be protection for local authorities unless there was evidence that that power was being abused. Tonight we heard a long speech from the Under-Secretary of State, even allowing for interventions, but not once did he explain or justify why he needed this added authority, contrary to the spirit of what the then Secretary of State presented to the House.
What the Secretary of State has put forward is what we expected all along, a two-stage operation, indeed, a three-stage operation. First, we had the Secretary of State's "softly softly" Act; secondly, tonight's regulations, and that will be followed by the voucher scheme, all intended to be a subsidy to private education and an undermining of the maintained sector.
We have heard all the old arguments about the lack of the power of the purse. I can tell the Under-Secretary and he should well know it, that the power of the purse, or the lack of the power of the purse, still applies to 90 per cent. of children and their parents. Nothing that he has said tonight will cut away from that power of the purse. We should have a commitment from his right hon. Friend and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in the Treasury to vote money into the maintained system to put quality of education into the maintained system. All the rest is candyfloss and packaging.
One of the other things with which the Government have tried to mislead people is the idea of choice. The idea that the Government have offered choice to parents is a fraud, and well the Minister knows it. For most parents there is no choice in the maintained system. The good schools are over-subscribed. Children are not given choice any more than they were before the Act.
Therefore, all these ideas, all these bits of publicity that are brought before the House and country do not hide the fact that real choice and a real chance for British children will come from investment in the maintained sector and not from subsidy of the private sector. That is why we shall vote against the Government tonight.

Mrs. Angela Rumbold: I have been somewhat surprised to hear the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) make such tremendous assertions about the rigidity of the maintained sector and the rigidity of Conservative-controlled authorities about the maintained sector.
As a chairman of an education committee at the time the Education Act 1980 was introduced, I accepted, as did my Conservative colleagues, that the veto for the assisted places scheme for the over 16s was a good idea. I accepted, and as a Conservative authority we passed it, that we would agree not to allow children to cross from the maintained sector into the independent sector. I am proud to say, having watched the progress of the sixth formers—the progress of the choice which we — I am proud to say it — in the maintained sector can offer our young people of over 16—that I do not regard the lifting of this veto as in any way a threat to the maintained sector.
Moreover, I say to the hon. Member for Bedwellty that it would be just as well if he were to observe what actually happens in local education authorities. It was quite clear from a number of the things he said this evening that he has no understanding of the way in which, for example, local education authorities allow cross-boundary education to occur at post-16 years. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will know very well that only recently my local authority had a great argument with a neighbouring local authority about the exchange of 16-year-olds across boundaries. My hon. Friend, kindly and rightly, agreed that parental choice and the child's choice should be paramount.
No Opposition Member would wish young people not to have the opportunity to make the right choices for themselves, backed up by their parents, to go to whichever authority will provide sixth form education. [Interruption.] Never mind about the numbers of A-levels. One does not need to change the law. The law already exists to enable young people to do exactly as they wish. It displays the ignorance of Opposition Members about what local authorities can achieve for young people, especially those aged over 16.
We should all welcome the enablement of young people to study various subjects within both the maintained sector and, if necessary, to cross the boundary into independent schools. It should be welcomed not for party political reasons, but because all hon. Members should be interested in helping youngsters to study those subjects, and to obtain the maximum qualifications that they need to advance in the world and to become proper members of society. It is reprehensible that any hon. Member, because of party political dogma, would wish to restrain young people from doing things that schools or colleges in the independent sector can offer them simply because he does not approve of crossing boundaries.
The best way to ensure that our educational system is perfect is not to accept that those boundaries exist, but to ensure that there is true partnership between the independent sector—which provides only a small part of education—and the local education authorities, which should be willing to enjoy that partnership. It will be a shame, and of great detriment to the people who are running education, if they do not accept that they can join those who provide independent education in allowing young people, such as the young woman who has been mentioned, to enjoy the maximum possible benefit and to further their educational aims.

Mr. Martin Flannery: The Opposition believe that the assisted places scheme has nothing to do with helping a few thousand poor and able children, but has everything to do with strengthening and


building private education. If the scheme helps a few children who could well have obtained education in comprehensive schools, that is just a by-product of its real aim.
If Conservative Members wish to help many poor children, they should read the report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate, which the Government have been good enough to publish recently, to see what they are doing to the vast majority of poor children. It ill becomes Conservative Members to weep crocodile tears about poor children when the Government have introduced massive and horrific education cuts that mean that our children must use dog-eared books, that two children must use one book, and that there is not enough money in the maintained sector to buy equipment.
All the education journals say that there is a lack of music teaching, and peripatetic music teachers—[Interruption.] I notice the offensive attitude of some Conservative Members, with the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Myles) pretending to play a fiddle as though I am not telling the truth about the sacking of peripatetic music teachers and the attack on music teaching in ordinary schools.
It hardly becomes Conservative Members to laugh. The reality is that the parents of many children who are studying music are having to pay for lessons which hitherto their children obtained free. There is massive unemployment in the homes from which they come and millions of pounds of taxpayers' money are being used to support private education in an area in which the creaming-off process has resumed. That area is steadily expanding as public money is put increasingly into private education.

Dr. Keith Hampson: rose—

Mr. Flannery: There is no time for me to give way to the hon. Gentleman, as the debate has almost ended.
There is an attack on the freedom of local education authorities to make decisions about the education of sixth formers. These are the realities from which Conservative Members cannot possibly escape. They are scheming for the voucher system when they assume office again, if they do. They are attacking the principle of comprehensive education by the creaming-off process because they know that there has never been such a boon to our children as comprehensive education. It goes from strength to strength. Nearly 89 per cent. of our children are in comprehensive schools and receiving a first-class education, which becomes better and better all the time no matter what the creaming-off process is.
We are witnessing an attack on comprehensive education by those who are destroying the school meals system and pretending that they want to help poor children. They are taking money from those who are poor to give it to those who already have sufficient. It is an attack on education and we shall reverse it when the next Labour Government take office.

Dr. Keith Hampson: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) failed to tell us that in the northern region there are the worst A-level results in Britain. There is a decline in the number of pupils staying on at school and over the past few years there has been a decline in the number of pupils going on

to further and higher education. At the same time, the region enjoys more than the average financial entitlement per pupil and more nursery provision than almost any other area—60 per cent. provision against an average of 30 per cent. It has better pupil-teacher ratios than almost any other region apart from Scotland. How does the hon. Gentleman square the notion that standards depend on financial provision with those facts?
The Opposition have lacked a sense of proportion. The education budget is £9·5 billion and they are carping and building up steam about a motion that involves £9 million. In the past year my right hon. and hon. Friends have announced a £14 million new technology scheme, a £3 million a year microprocessor scheme, a £2 million scheme for the under-achievers of 14 and 15 years and a £1 billion scheme for those who leave school too early, like many in the north-east, on the youth training scheme. The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, gave us an example of verbal diarrhoea and showed a complete lack of proportion. His purpose throughout was to concentrate on the well-being of the maintained sector. Conservative Government after Conservative Government since the war built up the maintained sector.

Mr. Dobson: How can the hon. Gentleman gay that? Has he read the HMI report?

Dr. Hampson: For 13 years there was a Conservative Government—those years were not wasted—during which the education system expanded considerably. During the 1970s the Conservative Government ensured the major place of comprehensive secondary education.
The Conservative Government's record is as good, indeed better, than that of any Labour Government. The hon. Member for Bedwellty insists on the well-being of maintained schools, but he does not insist on the well-being of individual pupils and parental choice.
Education authorities such as Lancashire, Derbyshire, Leeds, north Tyneside, Gateshead and Wakefield are vetoing the chances of pupils transferring into private schools that have standards their local state schools do not provide. I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for these regulations, which widen the choice for pupils and parents. It is not an attack on maintained schools but a widening of opportunity and choice.

Mr. David Alton: It is especially offensive that when higher education, further education and secondary schools are losing money needed for books, stationery and equipment, and when the numbers of teachers is being cut, money can be found for assisted places in private schools.
What I should have liked to hear from the Minister—we did not hear it—is how much the scheme costs. It would have been useful if the House could have measured its cost against the cuts in the state sector, whether in higher or further education. It would have been useful to know its cost in the light of the cuts in university places that have taken place in the past three years, and as the first of our lecturers has been sacked. It is outrageous for the Government still to find money for assisted places in private schools in such circumstances.
We have heard a great deal today about how youngsters in inner city areas will benefit from this scheme. I


represent an inner city area. It must be said that many youngsters in comprehensive schools in inner city areas are getting a bad deal at the moment, because state schools are in a crisis. That crisis will not be helped by a reduction in funds and the transfer of the best pupils to private schools. We must rationalise the schools that exist and give them additional help and resources.
Names of people who are being educated in our schools now have been bandied around the Chamber today. It is extremely unfortunate that young children's names have been used as they have. Behind those names are people who might listen to this debate tomorrow morning on the radio.
It does the House no good to use young girls' names as it has today, or for us to hear details of their families. Nor does it do those children any good. When we hear hon. Members talk of closing down the scheme at the first opportunity, as we did from the official Opposition, they fail to take into account the children who are on those schemes now—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business).

Question put: —

The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 204.

Division No. 64]
[11.43 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Alexander, Richard
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Chapman, Sydney


Ancram, Michael
Churchill, W. S.


Arnold, Tom
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Aspinwall, Jack
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Clegg, Sir Walter


Atkinson, David (B'm'th.E)
Cockeram, Eric


Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)
Colvin, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Cope, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Corrie, John


Bendall, Vivian
Costain, Sir Albert


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Cranborne, Viscount


Best, Keith
Critchley, Julian


Bevan, David Gilroy
Crouch, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dickens, Geoffrey


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Dorrell, Stephen


Blackburn, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Body, Richard
Dover, Denshore


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Durant, Tony


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Bowden, Andrew
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Eggar, Tim


Braine, Sir Bernard
Elliott, Sir William


Bright, Graham
Emery, Sir Peter


Brinton, Tim
Eyre, Reginald


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Brotherton, Michael
Fairgrieve, Sir Russell


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Browne, John (Winchester)
Farr, John


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Fell, Sir Anthony


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Buck, Antony
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Budgen, Nick
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Bulmer, Esmond
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Burden, Sir Frederick
Fookes, Miss Janet


Butler, Hon Adam
Forman, Nigel


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fox, Marcus


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh





Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Mayhew, Patrick


Fry, Peter
Mellor, David


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gardner, Sir Edward
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Miscampbell, Norman


Goodlad, Alastair
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Gorst, John
Moate, Roger


Gow, Ian
Monro, Sir Hector


Gower, Sir Raymond
Montgomery, Fergus


Grant, Sir Anthony
Moore, John


Greenway, Harry
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Grieve, Percy
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Murphy, Christopher


Grist, Ian
Myles, David


Grylls, Michael
Neale, Gerrard


Hamilton, Hon A.
Needham, Richard


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nelson, Anthony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neubert, Michael


Hannam, John
Nott, Rt Hon Sir John


Haselhurst, Alan
Onslow, Cranley


Hastings, Stephen
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Hawksley, Warren
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Heddle, John
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Henderson, Barry
Patten, John (Oxford)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Pattie, Geoffrey


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Pawsey, James


Hill, James
Percival, Sir Ian


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Pink, R. Bonner


Hooson, Tom
Pollock, Alexander


Hordern, Peter
Porter, Barry


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Rathbone, Tim


Jessel, Toby
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Renton, Tim


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Kimball, Sir Marcus
Rifkind, Malcolm


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Knight, Mrs Jill
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Lamont, Norman
Rossi, Hugh


Lang, Ian
Rost, Peter


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Royle, Sir Anthony


Latham, Michael
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Lawrence, Ivan
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lee, John
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Shepherd, Richard


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shersby, Michael


Loveridge, John
Silvester, Fred


Luce, Richard
Sims, Roger


Lyell, Nicholas
Skeet, T. H. H.


McCrindle, Robert
Smith, Dudley


Macfarlane, Neil
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


MacGregor, John
Speed, Keith


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Speller, Tony


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Spence, John


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Sproat, Iain


McQuarrie, Albert
Squire, Robin


Madel, David
Stainton, Keith


Major, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marland, Paul
Stanley, John


Marlow, Antony
Steen, Anthony


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stevens, Martin


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Stokes, John


Mawby, Ray
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Tapsell, Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)






Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Walters, Dennis


Temple-Morris, Peter
Ward, John


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Thompson, Donald
Watson, John


Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Wells, Bowen


Thornton, Malcolm
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wheeler, John


Trippier, David
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Trotter, Neville
Whitney, Raymond


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Wickenden, Keith


Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Wilkinson, John


Viggers, Peter
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Waddington, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Wakeham, John
Wolfson, Mark


Waldegrave, Hon William
Younger, Rt Hon George


Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)



Walker, B. (Perth)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wall, Sir Patrick
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Waller, Gary
Mr. Carol Mather.


NOES


Adams, Allen
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Allaun, Frank
Dewar, Donald


Alton, David
Dixon, Donald


Anderson, Donald
Dobson, Frank


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dormand, Jack


Ashton, Joe
Dubs, Alfred


Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dunnett, Jack


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Eadie, Alex


Beith, A. J.
Eastham, Ken


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Bennett, Andrew (St'Kp't N)
English, Michael


Bidwell, Sydney
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Evans, John (Newton)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Faulds, Andrew


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Field, Frank


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Flannery, Martin


Buchan, Norman
Ford, Ben


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Forrester, John


Campbell, Ian
Foster, Derek


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Cant, R. B.
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Carmichael, Neil
Freud, Clement


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Clarke, Thomas (C'b'dge, A'rie)
George, Bruce


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Golding, John


Cohen, Stanley
Gourlay, Harry


Coleman, Donald
Graham, Ted


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Conlan, Bernard
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Cook, Robin F.
Hardy, Peter


Cowans, Harry
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Crowther, Stan
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cryer, Bob
Haynes, Frank


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Heffer, Eric S.


Dalyell, Tarn
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Davidson, Arthur
Holland, S, (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Home Robertson, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Homewood, William


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Deakins, Eric
Hoyle, Douglas





Huckfield, Les
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Race, Reg


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Richardson, Jo


Janner, Hon Greville
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


John, Brynmor
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Robertson, George


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rooker, J. W.


Kinnock, Neil
Roper, John


Lambie, David
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Lamond, James
Rowlands, Ted


Leadbitter, Ted
Sever, John


Lestor, Miss Joan
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Litherland, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


McCartney, Hugh
Silverman, Julius


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Skinner, Dennis


McElhone, Mrs Helen
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Snape, Peter


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Soley, Clive


McKelvey, William
Spellar, John Francis. (B'ham)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Spriggs, Leslie


McMahon, Andrew
Stallard, A. W.


McNally, Thomas
Stoddart, David


McNamara, Kevin
Stott, Roger


McTaggart, Robert
Strang, Gavin


McWilliam, John
Straw, Jack


Marks, Kenneth
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)
Tilley, John


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Tinn, James


Maxton, John
Torney, Tom


Maynard, Miss Joan
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Meacher, Michael
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Mikardo, Ian
Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Warden, Gareth


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Watkins, David


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Welsh, Michael


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
White, Frank R.


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Morton, George
Whitehead, Phillip


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Whitlock, William


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Newens, Stanley
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S sea W)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)


O'Halloran, Michael
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)


O'Neill, Martin
Winnick, David


Palmer, Arthur
Woodall, Alec


Park, George
Woolmer, Kenneth


Parker, John
Wright, Sheila


Pavitt, Laurie
Young, David (Bolton E)


Pendry, Tom



Pitt, William Henry
Tellers for the Noes:


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Dr. Edmund Marshall and


Prescott, John
Mr. Ron Leighton.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.

South Africa (Sporting Links)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Cope.]

Mr. John Carlisle: I am grateful for being allowed this debate tonight. I make no apology to the House for bringing to its attention yet again the devastating effect that the Gleneagles agreement is continuing to have upon the prospects and activities of British and Commonwealth sportsmen. The Minister will be aware of the strong feelings held by many hon. Members and people outside the House about this agreement. It was signed and sealed by a Labour Prime Minister, who at the time was desperate for support from any national Government who wished to attack South Africa. It was approved, regrettably, by the Prime Minister twice at the various conferences but never had the approval of Parliament, let alone approval from the representative sports bodies such as the Sports Council or the Central Council of Physical Recreation.
It is a document without legal foundation or statutory requirement on the individuals concerned. It is to the Government's shame that the agreement is in force. It restricts the freedom of the individual to exercise his choice to play wherever and against whomsoever he wishes. It is to the shame of the Government that they continue to support the agreement. They have allied themselves to a cause which is unashamedly Left-wing and, in some cases, Moscow-inspired.
The Minister knows that the actions of at least 75 per cent. of all the sports bodies that have expelled South African sportsmen from competition in recent years have resulted from Russian resolutions and usually with the approval of the United Nations. Those Commonwealth countries that wish to isolate further the South African people are doing so for political reasons that have nothing to do with sport. Sportsmen have become the easy weapon of South Africa's opponents. Those opponents trade happily with that country and in some cases almost entirely depend on them for food and survival. This hypocrisy and double-standard should receive the Government's immediate attention.
Since our last debate in the House on the subject of the Commonwealth declaration of sport, or the Gleneagles agreement, as it is more popularly known, two significant and, I believe, dangerous developments have occurred. The first is the new code of practice that has been adopted by the Commonwealth Games Federation, and the second is the banning of entry by the Australian Prime Minister of British nationals who have competed and played sport in South Africa.
I ask the Minister tonight for his opinion of the new code of practice. He will know that the federation's decision now means that any sporting bodies within the federation—

Mr. Peter Snape: rose—

Mr. Carlisle: I do not know whether the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) wishes to make an intervention, but I do not intend to give way to him. I was saying that any such sporting bodies which are unwittingly represented by individuals in South Africa have become liable to expulsion from the games.
Furthermore, the federation is encouraging its members to criticise other sporting authorities that participate in

South Africa. It could be incumbent on the Amateur Athletics Association to criticise the English Rugby Union if, as I hope it will, it goes to the Republic for its tour in 1984. What humbug this is.
Is the federation saying that Britain cannot compete in the Commonwealth Games in Edinburgh in 1986 if a British swimmer takes part in a competition in Pretoria? Is the federation saying that if an English bowls player, who happens to be on holiday in Durban, is invited to take part in a local competition, his participation could jeopardise his country's entry into the Commonwealth Games in Edinburgh in 1986? Is the federation telling our amateur boxers that each time they climb into the ring with a young, black South African heavyweight, they jeopardise the chances of all Commonwealth Games sportsmen to participate?
It seems to me, and to many other people, that the Commonwealth Games Federation is trying deliberately to wreck Commonwealth sport, to ruin the chances of thousands of young men and women who aspire to represent their country, and to cede all responsibility to the respective Governments. What is more, it places its own members in an intolerable situation. Only Britain and New Zealand abstained on the vote, but they are bound by a decision. They have always believed that each federation should take its own decision on its own association with South Africa.
It will be recalled that at the time of the Moscow Olympics some sports opted out of the Government's decision and decided to go. If this new code is to be observed, it will mean dissension in their own ranks as well as deep divisions within those representing sports outside those ranks.
I heartily congratulate the Central Council of Physical Recreation on issuing its recent statement condemning this new code, for standing up for the freedom of the British sportsman and for completely absolving itself of any association with this resolution. I trust that this evening my hon. Friend will wholeheartedly support the CCPR in its decision.
The second vicious twist to this unfortunate saga is the decision by the Australian Government through the Australian Prime Minister, Mr. Malcolm Fraser, to deny entry visas to any British sportsmen who have played cricket in South Africa. That he has apparently done in the name of the Gleneagles agreement. Such action has already been considered despicable and condemned by citizens of his own country and has led to anger and puzzlement among sportsmen throughout the world. Only today I had a telephone call from Mr. Geoffrey Boycott, of Yorkshire and England fame, asking whether he would now be able even to enter Australia, let alone to play—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally) seems to think that this is funny. If Mr. Boycott is denied the living for which he is trained and the living to which he is entitled, we ought to make some protest in this House.

Mr. Tom McNally: Is there not also a need for sportsmen to think hard about when they are used as political pawns by both Governments and commercial organisations which put up large sums to induce them to go to South Africa for political rather than sporting reasons? Should not that also be condemned?

Mr. Carlisle: The party of which the hon. Gentleman was formerly a member might disagree, because his


former colleague, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, recently said on television that he thought that the whole thing should be looked at again. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that sportsmen should be picked out rather than business men, what is the policy of his party towards business in South Africa and the 200,000 jobs involved in British trade?

Mr. Michael Brotherton: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the most important thing is the freedom of the rights of individuals, be they West Indian or English, to play cricket in South Africa, Australia or wherever? Mr. Boycott and Mr. Rowe, a distinguished West Indian cricketer, are playing cricket in South Africa and that is what they should be allowed to do, regardless of the way in which Opposition Members condemn them.

Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has highlighted the difference between the Opposition and Conservative Members, in that we agree with freedom of choice of the individual and they do not.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will make it absolutely clear tonight where British sportsmen stand on this issue. As he knows, hundreds are involved. If the ban applies to cricketers, why should it not apply to tennis players, athletes, golfers, and even to jockeys who have enjoyed sport in South Africa? I hope that my hon. Friend will reinforce the general condemnation of Mr. Fraser's action and say that the British Government would never enforce such a ban for such a reason. Many are waiting to hear what he has to say tonight.
The only answer lies in the complete abandonment and scrapping of this agreement. Frankly, it has now ceased to be necessary. It states in its preliminary that it is directed against any country, including South Africa, where
sports are organised on the basis of race, colour or ethnic origin".
My hon. Friend will know that such a situation simply does not now exist in South Africa. He does not need to take my word for it. There is the evidence of his own Sports Council, the International Cricket Conference, the International Tennis Federation, and a French parliamentary delegation, as well as the evidence of numerous individuals who have visited that country, many of whom have changed their minds after seeing the situation out there. Only recently, the South African national olympic council declared that it would swear an affidavit to the effect that its sport was organised on a selection merit basis only. We know that spectators can sit where they like. There is the evidence of moderates, such as Tommy Bedford and Sydney Maree, who have pleaded with the international organisers to recognise the progress that has been made.
Unfortunately, my Government and my hon. Friend still refuse to acknowledge these facts. How can we justify standing by an agreement the basic requirement of which is now satisfied? How can we, in honesty, keep the terms of a treaty that asked for change, instituted change, and then refused to acknowledge that change? It smells to me rather like the trade union leaders — and, in some cases, managements — who accept the appointment of an arbitrator in a dispute and then ignore his recommendations.
My hon. Friend should go out there and have a look for himself. No British Minister has visited the Republic since we came into office. He should go out and spend time in the black township of Soweto and go, as I did, to a football match with some 40,000 supporters. He should go to the

coloured township of Mitchells Plain, just outside Cape Town, and look at the facilities there and the people who are taking part. He should go to the suburbs of Johannesburg and talk to the Indians and the young Indian cricketers. They will tell him that sport is fully integrated. He will have every opportunity to ask them about it. If we make an agreement we should not be afraid to question that agreement and test its validity. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the agreement is harming those whom it is meant to benefit.
I hold no truck with apartheid and with parts of the South African Government's policy. I consider many of them—as do many other hon. Members—to be an abomination of human rights, but I wish to encourage those who seek to break it, and I want to support those who are trying to change the system. I call on my hon. Friend and the Government to give international support a boost—a boost that ignores blackmail, ignores the hypocrisy, and frees sport of this ever-growing cancer of political interference.
My hon. Friend is in a unique position. His is a unique appointment. I know that he is a keen sports lover and that he is a capable competitor in his own right. I also know that in his Department he wears many hats. I ask him tonight to wear his sports hat and to act in the best interests of sportsmen.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) has pointed out, it is some 18 months since the House last debated this subject. That was on 31 July 1981, when he was similarly successful in the ballot. If marks were awarded in the House for persistence in pursuit of an issue, my hon. Friend would get an A rating, even if he does not always echo my views in all aspects of this complex subject.
The paper which has prompted this debate is called the 1977 Commonwealth Statement on Apartheid in Sport. As hon. Members know, its popular name derives from the fact that it was drafted by Commonwealth Heads of Government during their weekend retreat at a Scottish hotel and golf complex in 1977. Those hon. Members who have a penchant for that splendid game will no doubt think that the selection of that location was rather canny.
The statement is not a formal agreement. There are no signatories and it is not legally binding. It is a policy statement agreed by Commonwealth leaders giving expression to the deep abhorrence of apartheid, particularly in sport, shared by the Commonwealth and recognised by my hon. Friend in his remarks. It obliges Commonwealth Governments to discourage their sports-men and women from undertaking sporting contacts with South Africa. It is drafted in terms of broad principle so as to allow individual Governments discretion to fulfil their obligations according to their laws. Indeed, the statement says that it is
for each Government to determine in accordance with its laws the methods by which it might best charge these commitments.
Therein lies the hon. Member's concern.
By design, therefore, Commonwealth Governments interpret their responsibilities differently. In itself this does not mean that we should seek to renegotiate or even revoke the 1977 statement. By contrast, the flexibility which it allows is one of its greatest strengths, recognising at it does the varying relationships between Government and sport, immigration and visa entry rules, that apply in


different Commonwealth countries. Therefore, my first point is that the 1977 Commonwealth statement affects primarily Governments, not sports people. It is Governments' interpretation of the obligations of the statement, and their wider polices on sporting links with South Africa, that in turn affect sports people.
I doubt whether any hon. Member would deny the evils of apartheid, but I recognise that some, especially on this side of the House, are uneasy about the fact that the Commonwealth has placed sport in the forefront of what it perceives as a struggle against apartheid. My main concern is the continuation of international sport in its present non-racial form, especially within the Commonwealth because of our close and historic ties with other members.
Many Commonwealth countries and sports bodies feel that apartheid is totally irreconcilable with the principles of sport and do not therefore wish to see South Africa compete in the international arena. Sport led the way. My hon. Friend will recollect that it was a South African Prime Minister who said that the MCC team of 1968 was unacceptable. In 1970 the International Olympic Committee and the International Cricket Conference excluded South Africa from the fold. The ICC has confirmed its decision subsequently, as did the IOC when it met recently in Los Angles. FIFA, the governing body of the world's most popular sport, excluded South Africa in 1974. The point is that all those decisions were some years before Commonwealth Prime Ministers met at Glenagles to agree a joint statement of their approach. The 1977 statement was therefore, and remains, largely an endorsement of the actions and stance of certain international sports bodies. It also paved the way for the continuance of free sporting contacts within the Commonwealth. This was and is most important.
For sports people themselves, its most obvious and immediate impact was probably to ensure that the 1978 Commonwealth Games in Edmonton went ahead as planned without the sort of boycott that cast a shadow over the Montreal Olympics two years perviously. The Olympics survived that, but I doubt that the Commonwealth Games would have continued had there been a significant boycott in 1978. That would have been a sad loss. My hon. Friend was, however, concerned that the 1977 statement has damaged rather than helped the interests of sportsmen. I am well familiar with his views, but without an historical perspective any assessment of the effects of the 1977 statement would be unbalanced.
What is the Government's policy? The then Foreign Secretary confirmed the Government's acceptance of the statement's provisions soon after we came into office in 1979. That has been reaffirmed on various occasions—as my hon. Friend pointed out—and was reaffirmed by the Prime Minister at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting at Melbourne in 1981, and to the House on 11 November 1982. Our policy on sporting contacts with South Africa rests on the statement's provisions, and in accordance with those the Government seek to discourage such links. I do not, and the Government could not, countenance moving beyond that and taking steps to prevent such links. Such actions would be wholly contrary to our established traditions and rights of free movement, which we cherish and are determined to uphold.
On such matters, it is my practice to advise the governing body concerned, not the individual sports people. But it is for the governing bodies and individual sports people to decide whether they accept that advice. As far as United Kingdom sportsmen are concerned, this is the immediate day-to-day impact of the 1977 statement. I must emphasise that the Government take no sanctions against those governing bodies or individual sportsmen and women who choose not to accept my advice.
So far, my remarks have been confined to United Kingdom sportsmen and women. I shall contrive to cover all the points that my hon. Friend made before the end of the debate. However, I certainly do not propose to ignore the wider concerns cited by my hon. Friend and I do not apologise for focusing my attention so close to home. Mine is essentially a United Kingdom responsibility, but is would be foolish to try to deny the impact and importance of other Governments' policies prompted by the 1977 statement.
Frequent reference has been made to the 1977 Commonwealth statement. It does not call for Governments to prevent sporting contacts with South Africa, nor to take sanctions against those who do, nor—in the Government's view—does it call for Governments to take actions against non-nationals. Therefore, I do not regard the Australian Government's recent announcement as being required by the 1977 statement. The Australian Government have, however, embarked upon a path that we do not intend to follow.

Mr. Brotherton: If I were a member of a private club, would I be advised not to send a team from it to South Africa?

Mr. Macfarlane: I shall not comment on that, because I have merely read press speculation about what may or may not occur. My crystal ball is no better than my hon. Friend's and I have no means of knowing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West did not mention one matter, although it is an integral part of the problem. I refer to the United Nations' instruments. Underlying these instruments and others outside the Commonwealth are the various Governments' fundamental concern about sporting links with South Africa. The 1977 statement on apartheid in sport is but one manifestation of that. Others include the efforts within the United Nations to secure the adoption of a binding international convention, and, more pragmatically, the United Nations Centre Against Apartheid's efforts to maintain a black list of offending sportsmen.
The Government's view is well known. We cannot and will not support any instrument that requires us to control the free movement of our sportsmen and we regard the black list as haphazard, unreliable and unfair. Both this Government and the previous Administration recognise that it was not binding. We certainly do not recognise it.
Whatever the background, these developments demonstrate that sport has acquired a role in international politics. The hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally) touched on that. International sport is news. I need only point to the enormous television audiences worldwide that the Olympic Games and the World Cup attract. I am a strong supporter of the importance of the established autonomy of sports organisations—inter-national as well as domestic—and I am determined to do what I can to sustain this and to resist pressures to use sport


for political purposes. However, one must be realistic. Pressure groups might pretend otherwise, but politics is now an important factor on the international sporting scene. Alas, none of us can ignore that fact of modern life. My objective is to minimise to an acceptable level the influence and intrusion of politics. Sportsmen and women cannot evade the political role of sport. They cannot wish away any more the possible wider consequences of their actions for themselves and others. Those considerations are not paramount, but they exist and my hon. Friend will realise that they have to be acknowledged in whatever context.
My hon. Friend spoke about the Commonwealth Games Federation. Here again, there have been obvious misconceptions about the events and meetings that accompanied the games in Brisbane. The games were a great success, and about 50 members of the Commonwealth participated. We have had questions in the House suggesting that the 1977 statement has been redrafted or amended. However, I must make it clear, as I already have, that only the Commonwealth Heads of Government can seek to do that. The Commonwealth Games constitution cannot be used as a vehicle for altering the Commonwealth statement on apartheid and sport.
The games represented a gathering of sports people, competitors and administrators alike, and any decisions taken were theirs. There were no Governments and the delegates were able to make decisions freely and without interference.

Mr. John Carlisle: Is my hon. Friend saying that the decision by the federation to institute the code of practice has no binding requirement on members of the Commonwealth Games Federation?

Mr. Macfarlane: There are further meetings to take place in the not-too-distant future with the new

organisation. As everybody knows, the next games will be in Edinburgh and further meetings will have to resolve many of these problems.
As my hon. Friend will know, the English delegate abstained at the last games, and there were some misgivings about the commitment of sportsmen representing one sport and the effect that others would have in the event of their travelling elsewhere. My hon. Friend has referred to the recent statement of the Central Council of Physical Recreation and the fact that it has been quoted on the Commonwealth Games constitution.
I know that my hon. Friend feels very passionately about these matters. He has spoken about the progress in South African sport and integration. I have not visited South Africa, but I have read a number of reports and documents by various governing bodies and individuals in recent years. Clearly it would be unfair not to recognise that there has been some progress towards integrating sport among the various races. I do not know to what extent that has been due to the policy of the past 10 or 15 years, but it is a fact of life.
The debate has focused attention on a number of important issues. It is my intention to have the closest dialogue with the governing bodies to find out what their plans and their progress are over the next few years. As I have repeatedly said in the House, the most important consideration has to be the pride that we have in our multi-racial sport in this country. The fact that the Commonwealth Games are due to take place in Edinburgh in just under four years will focus the attention of many minds over the next few months. I hope that the Commonwealth Games will be as successful in Edinburgh as they were in Brisbane.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Twelve o'clock.